Hats off to the CCJ; it is the real deal

Jun 23, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

“Sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives” declares Article 9 of the constitution. Charrandass Persaud, who was selected to represent the persons that delivered a majority to the APNU+AFC in the last election, chose to flout this basic, fundamental democratic principle and deliver his vote to the PPP/C in support of its no-confidence motion against the government. The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), just this week delivered a summary of the Court’s judgments that determined: that the no-confidence motion brought against the APNU+AFC administration was validly passed with the votes of 33 members (including Charrandass) of the 65 seat National Assembly; the process that was followed in the appointment of Justice Patterson as GECOM Chairman was flawed and in breach of Article 161 (2) of the constitution; and set a hearing, next Monday, June 24 for the parties to assist the Court in determining the consequential orders to be made and the costs to be awarded.
Clearly, the issues to be determined are not particularly complicated and relate to the status of the government; the timetable for elections mandated by the passage of the no confidence motion and the correct procedure for appointing a Chairman of GECOM.
Not unexpectedly, the positions of the two parties are poles apart and seemingly impervious to consensus. The Leader of the Opposition is adamant that the government must resign, and should have resigned since last December and that its continued existence is illegal and unconstitutional. He also insists, uncompromisingly, that elections must be held within 2-3 months of the CCJ’s ruling. On the other hand, the administration led by President Granger is set to continue in office and the President has indicated that he will proclaim a date for elections when the Chairman of GECOM, which has constitutional responsibility for the general direction and supervision and the administrative conduct of elections, advises him of the Commission’s readiness.
Article 106 (7) of the constitution seems to be abundantly clear on this matter and does not invite political negotiations and accommodation to resolve the issues referenced above. It states that: Notwithstanding its defeat (in the no confidence motion) the government shall remain in office and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the next elections; and that elections shall be held within 3 months of the passage of the no confidence motion OR such longer period as the National Assembly shall determine by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly.
This article, it is clear to me, does not support the positions of the Opposition Leader, and others, and stipulates that it is constitutional, and a requirement, for the government (including the President) to remain in office (there is no constitutional requirement for a caretaker, limited, restricted or barebones government, in fact Article 104 seems to preclude it) and for elections to be held outside of 3 months. It is constitutional for the National Assembly to determine a later date and since the rulings of the Court has made clear that members of the National Assembly have the ability, and right, to vote with, or against, their party as they chose it is quite possible, even likely, that a two-thirds vote could be secured in the National Assembly for an election date. This would appear to be a matter of law, plain and simple, and not to be bartered away in an attempt at political accommodation, forced or otherwise.
GECOM has advised that there is no list of voters that can be used for elections at this time as the Voters Registration List expired at April 2019 and has taken steps to create a new list through house-to-house registration. It is very encouraging to see citizens of Guyana, who have seen their fundamental rights trampled upon and abused by the passage of the no-confidence motion (APNU+AFC received a majority of votes and seats in parliament following the last elections but are deemed to be defeated by fraud and conspiracy not prohibited by the constitution) beginning to resist further erosion of their rights by demanding a new round of registration before the impending general and regional elections.
Regarding the matter of the appointment of the Chairman of GECOM, the CCJ found that the President breached Article 161 (2) of the constitution since he had no authority to introduce new eligibility requirements and should have given reasons for rejecting the candidates submitted by the Opposition Leader. This judgment is not clearly understood since Article 161 (2) summarized, states the following; the Leader of the Opposition, after meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly, shall submit a list of 6 persons to the President who shall appoint the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission; the list shall include persons who have held office as a judge, or who are qualified to be appointed as a judge. These persons should not be unacceptable to the President and should be fit and proper persons.
It is not clear what “new eligibility criteria” is referenced by the CCJ and the rationale that the President should give reasons for rejecting the Opposition Leader’s nominees. Moreover, it seems to be accepted that since the PPP/C is the sole non-governmental political party in the National Assembly the Opposition Leader is not required to consult with anyone outside the party that he leads and can, unilaterally, nominate 6 persons and is not required to present any information, other than their names, including information regarding their qualifications, experience, membership of, or association with, political or social organizations to assist the President in making a selection as would be the case in a normal, transparent job application exercise. Maybe requesting this information is what is meant by “introducing new eligibility criteria”. If this is what is objected to, it seems to be unreasonable and blatantly discriminatory and unfair to then require that the President provide reasons for non-acceptance of such naked lists and a clarification should be necessary. It seems that the CCJ interprets the constitution to place limitations that are not explicitly stated, on the President but none on the Opposition Leader who is, apparently, in control of this process. Both the President and the Opposition Leader have, since the CCJ’s ruling, committed themselves to ensuring the integrity and acceptance of the process for selecting a Chairman for the Guyana Elections Commission so that elections can be held at the earliest opportunity.
Let us resolve these questions quickly and bring on the elections.

Sincerely
Oscar Dolphin

---

---