-Commissioner Gunraj says, points to existing precedent

PPP/CIVIC-NOMINATED Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Commissioner Sase Gunraj has dismissed concerns over the Attorney-General (AG) Anil Nandlall providing legal advice to the commission in the absence of an in-house legal adviser.

Gunraj was at the time speaking on the Starting Point podcast during which he stated that such consultation is not without precedent and does not amount to a conflict of interest.

He indicated that it has long been the practice for the commission to seek legal guidance from the AG’s Chambers, even when a full-time legal officer was employed.

“Advice from the Attorney-General to the Guyana Elections Commission is not a new phenomenon,” Gunraj emphasised, adding, “Even when we had full-time legal officers in our employ, advice and guidance were sought from the Chambers of the Attorney General, sometimes directly from the Attorney-General on varying matters.”

To this end, Gunraj added that the Attorney-General, as the state’s principal legal adviser, is often best positioned to provide insight into the rationale behind the implementation of certain legal provisions in various sections of the country’s legislation.

He stated that sometimes guidance is required from the AG on issues and the rationale behind the implementation of matters in the Representation of the People Act (RoPA).

“Who else are you going to get that from? We can’t sit seven people, no legal adviser and figure out what was the rationale behind certain issues,” Gunraj asserted.

He then recalled events of March 2020 following the General and Regional Elections which are clear examples of the set precedent.

Gunraj further recounted that discussions on drafting what would become the controversial Order 60 which dealt with the recount of votes involved direct engagement with the AG’s Chambers.

Gunraj noted that some of those who are now objecting to such consultation did not express similar concerns at that time.

He further clarified that any advice provided by the AG is not binding. “Any advice provided by the AG could only be to us persuasive guidance. We’re not bound to accept it. And as a lawyer myself, I am always grateful for another view, if ever there is one, to consider when making a decision.”

On the broader concern of a legal vacuum within GECOM, Gunraj acknowledged that no steps have yet been taken to replace the former legal officer.

However, he suggested that even during the 2020 elections, the commission relied heavily on external counsel rather than its internal legal adviser.

“As recent as 2020… the legal officer had little or no role to play in those matters. You’d recall all of them were handled by external counsel,” he stated.

Against this backdrop, Gunraj said the current debate over the AG’s involvement appears to be manufactured and external to the commission.

“For the avoidance of doubt, in the commission itself, there is no big issue about this. These concerns, if I can call them that, were raised outside or external to the commission, not from within.”