A law was struck down because of personal ambitions - Barbadian Queens Counsel

A law was struck down because of personal ambitions – Barbadian Queens Counsel

Jun 27, 2018 News

Lawyers representing the Attorney General Chambers have blasted the abuse of the system which allowed a case to end up at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

The legal team that was representing the Attorney General Chambers

The so-called ‘Third Term’ case, closely watched in Guyana and around the world, came to a head yesterday, with the CCJ striking down the court decision in Guyana, which essentially would have allowed a president to serve more than the constitutional two terms that a Parliamentary amendment permitted.
Shortly after the decision was read at the CCJ headquarters in Trinidad, Ralph Thorne, Queens Counsel from Barbados, made it clear that the decision was the final stop. He was with several other lawyers at the Kingston-based Court of Appeal, in Georgetown, Guyana.
Thorne stressed that it is important that a law which was passed by a Parliament that was not divided on that law, should not have been struck down by the local courts purely for the purpose of individual ambitions.
It would be scathing words for not only former President Bharrat Jagdeo, who would had been able to run again after finishing two terms in office in 2011, but also for the local courts.
The High Court first agreed that the decision made by the Parliamentarians was not sound. The Court of Appeal upheld it, before the Attorney General Chambers filed a case with CCJ for a final decision.
In essence, the rulings of the local courts brought into question the sovereignty of the people and the power of the representatives in the National Assembly.
According to Thorne, the CCJ decision will allow Guyana to remain at peace.
Meanwhile, Solicitor General, Kim Kyte, who was part of the legal team, lauded the decision, which saw six judges voting that the amendment was above board, against one dissent.
She said that AG Chambers felt vindicated as it always believed in its arguments not only in the High Court and Court of Appeal, but at the CCJ.
According to Thorne, the Opposition – the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) – should not take any comfort in the lone dissenting vote, and it was Jagdeo’s government who passed it.
Queens Counsel Hal Gollop, who also was part of the team, said that the case may open the possibilities for a wider participation of the electorate.
He noted that under the system of governance in Guyana, the rights of the electorate have been transferred to the representatives.
While it originated in the days of old Greece and Athens, it is a fact that Guyana has developed a more sophisticated one, where there are Members of Parliament representing the people.
Justice Gollop noted also that it is important that the margin of the vote was 6-1, which is by no means a minority decision.
“The fact that seven judges sat for the case is evidence of how important they considered the matter,” he said.