CCJ denies GECOM’s application in no-confidence motion case

May 05, 2019 News

The Caribbean Court of Justice, in an order on Friday, denied an urgent application of the Guyana Elections Commissioner to submit oral evidence in the no-confidence matter involving Christopher Ram and the Attorney General of Guyana.
GECOM applied by way of affidavit of its Chairman, Justice (Ret’d) James Patterson to present evidence in rebuttal to Ram’s affidavit previously submitted to the Court.
Ram, in his application, is accusing GECOM of doing very little to deal with matters of elections.
The CCJ, in its order in response, denied GECOM’s application and instead allowed the elections body to submit written submissions.
The court noted that in the Pretrial Hearing, GECOM’s attorneys Excellence Dazzell and Stanley Marcus S.C., had indicated that GECOM would not be making written or oral submissions in the proceedings and would abide by the order of the court.
As such it refused the application.
Ram, through his attorneys Devindra Kissoon and Kamal Ramkarran had applied at the CCJ to add GECOM as a necessary party.
The court granted the application.
Ram is asking the CCJ for a number of coercive orders against GECOM, including requesting that the court order that elections immediately hold elections.
On May 9, 2019 and May 10, 2019, the court is set to hear a number of important cases that will have implications on Guyana and could see early elections.
On December 21, a government parliamentarian, Charrandass Persaud, joined with the Opposition in voting yes to a no-confidence motion. His lone vote gave the Opposition one-seat passage of the motion.
Under the Constitution of Guyana, it should have toppled the Government.
However, the Coalition Government, just three years into its office, insisted that the vote was not carried as it required an absolute majority. Government also argued that the parliamentarian was illegal as he had dual citizenship with Canada.
The High Court deemed the vote carried but that Persaud was illegally sitting.
The ruling had implications on sitting government and opposition members of parliament (MPs).
The Government went to the Court of Appeal where two out of three judges ruled that the vote was not carried.
The Court of Appeal agreed that Persaud was illegally sitting, as the Constitution does not allow him to do so while holding on to two passports.
The CCJ cases are the appeals and will have widespread implications for the government of the day, no-confidence votes in the National Assembly and the Constitution.
The May 9 and May 10 hearings are being closely watched.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News