‘AG slams PPP, Nandlall’s falsehoods’
Attorney-General Basil Williams
Attorney-General Basil Williams

…says party desperation knows no bounds

Attorney General Basil Williams on Friday slammed statements by PPP executive, Anil Nandlall that he has argued for the postponement of the forthcoming elections.
Nandlall made the comments following the court hearing in the partial appeal – the Attorney General-v-Christopher Ram, the Chief Elections Officer, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and the Guyana Bar Association (Amicus Curiae) in the Appellate Court.

Attorney Anil Nandlall

The court heard arguments regarding the validity of Constitutional Amendment No. 4 of 1991, which sets residency as a requirement for voting in Guyana. The arguments formed part of the overall challenge to the High Court’s decision to block the removal of persons from the National Register of Registrants Database (NRRDB), and the Court of Appeal has announced that it will hand down its judgment in the matter on Monday.

However following the final hearing on Thursday Nandlall in an interview with the Evening News -a recording of which he has uploaded on his facebook page, and which has been circulating on social media, the former AG alleged that Williams had argued in court for the upcoming elections to be postponed, but in a swift response Williams said: “This couldn’t be further from the truth and underscores the desperation of Mr. Nandlall and by extension his party as it heads into elections.”

Saying he will not respond to Mr Nandlall’s comments on the case itself since the matter is still before the court and as such is deemed sub-judice, Williams however, said note must be taken that during the court hearing on Thursday Mr Nandlall attempted to make similar statements purporting that the Attorney General was calling for the postponement of elections and had to be corrected by the learned Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag). Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards.

“Mr Nandlall and the PPP have a history of disrespecting the courts and its officers when decisions do not go in their favour. This nation therefore, must be on guard as it is clear Nandlall is preparing the ‘wicket’ to launch one of those assaults on the judiciary if the decision on Monday does not go in his favour.” Williams said in his statsment. He said the Government of Guyana led by His Excellency, President David Arthur Granger has repeatedly committed to ensuring free, fair and transparent elections. Besides, he said the Coalition, APNU+AFC has launched a most spirited and dynamic campaign, inspiring thousands across the country and is confident of a resounding victory come March 2, 2020.

Residency requirement
Meanwhile, in his original written submission, the Attorney General had argued that by virtue of Constitution (Amendment) No. 4 of 1991, the residency requirement for voting in Guyana was reinstituted and became a necessary requirement to qualify to be an elector. Article 159 2(a) of the Constitution, he argued, was amended to read to include the residency requirement.

“Albeit an argument may be advanced that there was omission of the alteration of the revised constitution by section Two (f) of the Constitution (Amendment) (No.4) Act 1991 (Act No. 36 of 1991) and that the omission of an alteration to the article of the revised edition of the Constitution, this omission whether inadvertent or not, does not affect the validity of the article of the Constitution,” he said while pointing to Section 10 of the Law Revision Act, Chapter 2:02.

Further, in support of his position, the Attorney General, in his submission, made reference to Article 159 (2) (C), explaining that it provides a mechanism to facilitate the socio-political changes that would necessitate the extension of the list of qualifications.

Article 159 (2) (C) reads: “(two) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (three) and (four), a person shall be qualified to be registered as an elector for elections for elections if, and shall not be so qualified unless, on the qualifying date, he or she is of the age of eighteen years or upwards and either – (C) satisfies such other qualifications as may be prescribed by or under any law.”

He, therefore, argued that by virtue of that provision, Section six (two) (a) of the National Registration Act, Chapter 19:08 makes residency part of the list of qualifications under “any law.”

On Thursday, the Attorney General, in expounding on his original submission, explained that it was not the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM’s) intention to remove persons from the list, but rather to generate a new register based on data collected during the 2019 house-to-house registration. “Article 159 (five) [of the Constitution] states that by a qualifying date GECOM has the option to compile a new register or revise a register,” Minister Williams told the court.

He submitted to the Appellate Court that once a new National Register of Registrants Data Base (NRRDB) is developed, the old register is retired.

That aside, the Attorney General respectfully submitted to the Appellate Court that Ram and the Guyana Bar Association failed and neglected to provide and furnish any evidence of overseas voting since 1991. “The Act wasn’t inactive; the Constitutional Amendments and Elections Law were not inactive, they were being applied since 1991 because there has been no overseas voting since 1991, you had to be resident in Guyana to vote,” the Attorney General argued.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.