PPP’s challenge to GECOM Chairmanship…CCJ in case management hearing tomorrow

Mar 28, 2019 News

Tomorrow, March 29 the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will hold a case management conference in an appeal against the unilateral appointment of retired Judge James Patterson as Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).
The appeal was filed by former Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, after the Court of Appeal upheld President David Granger’s decision to unilaterally appoint Patterson, saying it was in accordance with the Constitution of Guyana.
In a Notice, the CCJ stated that the “the Case Management Conference is convened to give directions regarding the Notice of Application filed on the 20thday of February 2019, to inter alia, treat the Notice of Appeal filed on the 6th day of February 2019, as urgent.
“And, to determine the orders that are appropriate and necessary including the provision of timelines for filing submissions and other documents for the further progress of this case.”
The hearing will be heard by video conference at the Guyana Court of Appeal in Kingston, Georgetown.
People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Zulfikar Mustapha is the Appellant, while Attorney General, Senior Counsel Basil Williams, is named as the Respondent.
Last June, Chief Justice Roxane George ruled that the President acted lawfully when he unilaterally appointed Justice Patterson as Chairman of GECOM.
As a result, Mustapha filed an appeal against Justice George’s decision with the Court of Appeal. Anyway, Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory sat on the panel.
In upholding the Chief Justice’s ruling, Justice Gregory noted that in the process prior to the appointment of the GECOM Chairman by President Granger, there should have involved more consultation and consensus, rather than the supplying of 18 nominees from three lists of six names.
These were eventually rejected by the President. According to Justice Gregory, the mere submission of a list did not mean the President should pick one of the nominees, even after a prolonged period of eight months.
“The submission of a list, never mind 18 names and three lists, but without the engagement on their acceptability, separate from the choice, could not have led to a consensual candidate,” she said.
The Judge noted, too, that the President could not have been expected to make a choice without some discussion on the potential candidates, their qualifications, and other pertinent characteristics. She essentially stressed that it is for the President to determine who is fit and proper for the position from the list of nominees supplied by the Opposition Leader.
The judge also stressed that while the proviso rule in Article 161 (2) of the constitution is not ideal, President Granger resorted to the provision in the interest of the public.
“If he finds, therefore, that none of the lists is acceptable …he has the right to appoint one whom he finds suitable. Therefore a resort to the proviso was not lawful and unconstitutional.”
In upholding the decision of the Chief Justice Roxane George, Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Cummings-Edwards said that the proviso rule in Article 161 (2) of the constitution should have been enacted earlier; after the President rejected the first list.
Although she agreed with some of the submissions presented by Nandlall, the Chancellor noted that under Article 161 (2) of the Constitution, President Granger has the right to appoint a GECOM Chairman.
Similarly, Justice Persaud said there was nothing to suggest that the President acted unconstitutionally, illegally or unreasonably in appointing Justice Patterson.
The President could not be forced to choose from a list, because that could lead to an “unreasonable fettering of his discretion.”
“That could possibly lend itself to politicking, abuse by one …Again such an interpretation may also attempt to elevate the Leader of the Opposition to a position over and above the norms associated with his authority,” Justice Persaud added.
Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, Mustapha is now asking the CCJ, the nation’s highest court, for a review.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News