Govt. moves to CCJ to fight against a case it had won while in Opposition

Apr 06, 2024 Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

---

Kaieteur News – The Government of Guyana (GOG) has taken its case to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to appeal a July 2023 ruling by Guyana’s Court of Appeal regarding the appointments of parliamentary secretaries.

The appellants named in the appeal are Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, SC, Sarah Browne, and Vikash Ramkissoon. The appeal document outlines the grounds for challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal, which deemed the appointments of Browne and Ramkissoon as Parliamentary Secretaries unlawful. The Court of Appeal affirmed Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George, SC ruling nullifying the appointments of Ramkissoon and Browne as Parliamentary Secretaries in July 2023.

One of the key arguments of the Appellants had been that Chief Justice George erred by relying on the Desmond Morian v. Attorney General case as precedent, a contention dismissed by the appellate court. The court found that Browne and Ramkissoon were not lawful members of the National Assembly as their names were on their party’s list but were not among the 33 names selected to take up seats in the Assembly, making them ineligible to serve as Parliamentary Secretaries.

Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory had highlighted that the Appellants could not qualify as non-voting members of the National Assembly, as Parliamentary Secretaries. Addressing whether the ruling in Desmond Morian constituted binding precedent, the Court of Appeal confirmed it did, reaffirming its previous decision in the Morian case. Former Chief Justice (ag), Ian Chang had ruled in the Morian case that individuals on the candidates’ list but not extracted, are considered elected Members of the National Assembly.

At the CCJ, the Government contends that the Court of Appeal erred in several aspects of its judgment: misinterpreting the qualifications for being elected as Parliamentary Secretaries, incorrectly determining the status of individuals on a successful list of candidates for a general election, failing to follow earlier decisions in relevant cases, and not adhering to the decision of the Court of Appeal in a previous case involving similar issues.

Central to the appeal are assertions regarding the eligibility of Browne and Ramkissoon as elected members of the National Assembly. The Court of Appeal had ruled that despite their presence on the list, they were ineligible for non-voting membership due to their appointments as Parliamentary Secretaries. This decision is being contested along with the legality of their appointments, which the appellants argue were lawful.

Moreover, the appellants dispute the Court of Appeal’s reliance on previous decisions, contending that such reliance was misplaced. They also challenge the interpretation of Article 186(3) of the Constitution, which governs eligibility for appointment as elected members. Additionally, they contest the interpretation of Article 160(3)(a) and Section 99A of the Representation of the People Act, arguing that these provisions support their eligibility for appointment.

The Government seeks the following reliefs from the Caribbean Court of Justice: reversal or setting aside of the decision and orders of the Court of Appeal, judgment in favour of the appellants, costs incurred in the Caribbean Court of Justice and lower courts, and any other relief deemed just and appropriate by the CCJ. According to reports, Chief Justice George’s April 20, 2021 judgment found the appointments of Ramkissoon and Browne unlawful, ordering the Speaker to prevent them from participating in the House’s business. Justice George noted that while Attorney General Nandlall had previously supported the Morian case when in Opposition, he abandoned those principles when applied to Ramkissoon and Browne.

Christopher Jones MP, who filed the action challenging the appointments, argued that the Court of Appeal’s affirmation of Morian extended to all issues presented in that case, a point reaffirmed by the appellate court. For his part, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, who represented Nandlall, argued that the Morian case did not set precedent for his clients’ situation, contending that it was only considered regarding jurisdiction, not the substantive issue of candidacy.

Senior Counsel, Roysdale Forde, representing Jones, had argued that the Court of Appeal’s affirmation of Morian extended to all issues raised, suggesting Justice George was rightly bound by that decision. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal affirmed its previous decision, concluding that Browne and Ramkissoon could not serve as Parliamentary Secretaries. According to reports, the appointments in question were made in September 2021 under Article 186 of the Constitution, which allowed for the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries from among qualified National Assembly members. Despite the ruling, Browne was appointed to assist Minister of Amerindian Affairs, Pauline Sukhai, while Ramkissoon was appointed to assist Minister of Agriculture, Zulfikar Mustapha. Jones argued that the appointments were unlawful, emphasizing that Browne and Ramkissoon were not extracted from the party’s candidate list, thus ineligible for membership in the National Assembly.

---

• opposition, Roysdale Forde, Sarah Browne, Senior Counsel, Vikash Ramkissoon

---