…decision on GECOM Chairman’s appointment also expected

ON Tuesday, June 18, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is expected to rule on the consolidated appeals, challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal to invalidate the vote of no-confidence against the David Granger Administration. A decision will also be handed down on the appeal challenging the President’s decision to appoint Justice (Ret’d) James Patterson, Chairman of GECOM.

The decisions would be handed down, little more than a month after oral arguments were heard in both cases before a panel of judges led by President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders in the Trinidad-based court.

Last December, the Parliamentary Opposition, by way of a No-Confidence Motion, attempted to topple the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) Government. But while Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire, in the High Court, upheld the decision of the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland that the motion was carried by a majority of 33 votes, the Court of Appeal invalidated the motion on the basis that absolute majority of 34 votes were needed. The Opposition had secured the support of then Government Member of Parliament Charrandass Persaud to get an edge over the Government in the House, but even with that extra vote, the Court of Appeal, by a 2-1 margin, ruled that an absolute majority of the 65-Member National Assembly is 34.
The March 22 decision of the Court of Appeal was subsequently appealed at the CCJ. Those appeals are: Christopher Ram v The Attorney General, the Leader of the Opposition, Joseph Harmon and the Guyana Elections Commission; Bharrat Jagdeo v The Attorney General, the Speaker of the National Assembly, Joseph Harmon and the Guyana Elections Commission; and Charrandass Persaud v Compton Reid, the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Attorney General, Bharrat Jagdeo, Joseph Harmon and the Guyana Elections Commission.
During the hearing of the consolidated appeals on May 9 and 10, the Attorney General Basil Williams and his Attorney, Belizean Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay put forward a series of convincing arguments. Their arguments were supported by Senior Counsel Neil Boston, Attorney-at-Law Robert Corbin and Attorney-at-Law Roysdale Forde.

From the onset, the Attorney General admitted that the provisions in Article 106 (6) and (7) of the Constitution have dire consequences for Government, explaining that if successful the motion can lead to the premature dissolution of the National Assembly, and an early end to Government. However, he argued that it has a very high requirement, that is, an absolute majority. In 65-Member National Assembly, Minister Williams submitted to the Court that 34 votes were required to unseat the Government and not a simple majority of 33.

He was keen on pointing out that a simple majority is a majority of the Members of Parliament present and voting while an absolute majority is half of the 65-Member of Parliament plus one. Because a fraction would be derived due to the House having an uneven number of MPs, the Attorney General submitted to the court that it must first be round up the fraction before one is added. Only then can an absolute majority be arrived at, he argued. The half plus one formula, as contended by Sir Francis Alexis in the Court of Appeal can be best described as a two-stage formula.

His Attorney, Senior Counsel Courtenay told the CCJ that the Opposition could not have tabled a No-Confidence Motion against Government because it simply is not provided for in the Constitution of Guyana. Both Courtenay and Boston argued that Charrandass Persaud was an intruder in the House, and was not eligible to vote, as such his vote was not valid. The Constitution prohibits Members of Parliament from being Dual Citizens but Charrandass Persaud occupied a seat in the House regardless. His Lawyer, Sanjeev Datadin had argued that he was unaware of the requirements of the Constitution but one day after the oral arguments in the CCJ concluded, Charrandass Persaud confessed that he knew he ought not to have been there.

“I knew that people with dual citizenship could not hold a seat in parliament. That was a given, that’s a constitutional article that we can’t get away from. What I did in fact argue, and when I told Khemraj, I said that I have a Canadian passport, Khemraj said ‘rass with you, a lot of people have Canadian passports, look at Gail Teixeira’ and that’s what he said,” Persaud said on a programme broadcast on Youtube. The Attorney, through his attorney, has applied to the CCJ to admit the recording as evidence.

Meanwhile, in the case Zulfikar Mustapha vs Attorney General, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had ruled that Justice (Ret’d) Patterson’s appointment by President Granger was legitimate.

In October 2017, President Granger swore in Justice (Ret’d) Patterson as Chairman of GECOM after rejecting three lists of nominees totaling 18 names submitted by the Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo on the grounds that they were unacceptable within the meaning of the Constitution of Guyana. Faced with three unacceptable lists, the President resorted to the proviso found within Article 161 (2), which permits him to independently appoint a chairman.