IN light of the imminent ruling by the Court of Appeal on the validity of the no-confidence motion in the cases brought by the government, Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud on Friday deferred the oral arguments for the Conservatory Orders and Stay of proceedings being sought, to Friday March 22, 2019.

On Friday, some of the country’s leading legal minds were expected to make oral arguments before Justice Persaud on the Conservatory Orders and the stay of executions in the constitutional cases: The Attorney General v Christopher Ram and Leader of the Opposition; The Attorney General v Speaker of the National Assembly; and Compton Reid v The Speaker, Charrandass Persaud, the Attorney General, the Opposition Leader and Joseph Harmon, however, they were consulted on and notified of the changes instead. The new date was arrived at during a brief in chamber meeting with Justice Persaud at the Appellate Court.

Outside the court, the Attorney General Basil Williams, who appeared in association with Attorneys-at-Law Maxwell Edwards and Mayo Robertson, and the Solicitor General Nigel Hawke, only disclosed that a new date has been set for oral arguments. On behalf of the state, Williams is seeking to preserve the status quo of the government and its Cabinet by way of a conservatory order pending the final determination of the cases, and a stay to freeze the January 31, 2019 decision of the High Court that the no-confidence motion was validly passed. The government has submitted that the opposition did not secure an absolute majority on the night of December 21, 2018, and as such, the passage of the motion could not have been valid.

Attorney-at-Law, Anil Nandlall, the lead attorney representing the Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo, explained that the arguments were deferred pending the ruling of the full bench in the two cases brought by the attorney general.

“In the one filed by the attorney general, as you are aware the hearing of the appeal itself had started and the hearings were concluded. So we are awaiting decisions in that one. In my view, it is improper to deal with an interlocutory matter or an interlocutory application when the substantive matter itself, which also deals with the same reliefs, is about to be concluded,” Nandlall told reporters.

In relation to the Compton Reid case, Nandlall reminded that the date for oral arguments in the substantive case, which brings into question the issue of dual citizenship in the National Assembly, has been set for Wednesday March 20, 2019.
“We are going to start the hearing for the appeal of that matter then but because that one has not started as yet, the judge gave certain directions for us to put our written submissions in by sometime next week Tuesday, and we are to come back to court next week Friday (March 22) to deal with whether we are going forward or not,” Nandlall told reporters.

On Thursday, following three days of oral arguments in the appeal brought by the attorney general, Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, indicated that notices would be sent out soon with the date for the ruling. The ruling is likely to be made before Thursday March 21, 2019 – the constitutional deadline for the holding of General and Regional Elections in the absence of an extension by a two-thirds majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly.

A legal luminary had told the Guyana Chronicle that the court, in keeping with the doctrine of necessity, has the powers to grant an extension to the constitutional deadline.
According to him, “like it or not, the court is in the driving seat” and will determine the way forward – it has the powers to do so.

“The court will determine what happens if the time runs out or is about to run out. It will make that determination. No other organ in the state is capable of so doing… the court is the organ, the institution responsible for making that kind of determination,” he told this newspaper.

The no-confidence motion brought against the government last December has triggered the need for early elections; however, not only is the matter engaging the attention of the Court of Appeal, the Guyana Elections Commission, the constitutional body responsible for holding elections, has indicated that it lacks the technical and financial capability to do so within the three month timeframe.

Given the circumstances, the legal luminary said the court could depend on the doctrine of necessity, and grant an extension. “If it so happens that the court is in the process of resolving an issue or enquiring into an issue, and the time stipulated in the Constitution has been overshot, then the court could rely on the doctrine of necessity and give such extensions as are required in the circumstances,” he further explained.
He has also ruled out the notion that there is a looming constitutional crisis.