–Attorney-General says; contends PNCR Chief Scrutineer’s case invites court to violate the Separation of Powers

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (AG) Anil Nandlall has contended that there was no ambiguity or uncertainty with words used in amendments made to Guyana’s National Registration Act.
The AG stated this while presenting his submissions on Monday before Acting Chief Justice, Roxanne George-Wiltshire in response to an opposition challenge filed by PNC member, Carol Smith Joseph and noted that the merits of the case were weak and deficient.

In the application filed by Joseph, she is asking the high court to compel the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to conduct a house-to-house verification of the addresses of registrants.
The AG told the court that while amendments were passed in the National Assembly, the applicant is not contending that the law offends the Constitution or did not comply with the procedure for lawmaking.
“The applicant is saying to you your honour that the law doesn’t say what the law should say in the applicant’s view, that is hearsay,” Nandlall said while noting that no applicant has the power to tell the court that and also no court has the power to review the law on that ground.

Further to this, he contended that without alleging constitutional infractions of any type, the case is asking the court to declare the meaning of the word “verification” as used in the amended National Registration Act to mean something other than what the clear language of the section says.

“We respectfully submit that in the circumstances of the case at bar, there is no ambiguity, uncertainty or inconsistency with the plain meaning of the words “verify” or “address” or in fact any of the words of Section 6 (4B) of the NRA, to warrant further interpretation,” the written submissions noted.
Further to this, Nandlall told the court, that the case should not have been filed as it invites the court to violate the separation of powers, and added that the court has no power under the Judicial Review Act or in public law to grant the reliefs claimed in the case filed.

Earlier this year, speaking to the filed application, Nandlall emphasised to reporters that the issue of residency had been resolved by the court definitively, and cited the landmark ruling delivered by the acting Chief Justice in Christopher Ram v. Attorney General.

Against this backdrop, he indicated that residency was a requirement under the 1966 and 1970 constitution, however, this was removed in the 1980 constitution.
Further, he said under Guyana’s laws, the qualifications for voter registration and participation in the election do not include residency as a requirement.