Rogue clique within Guyana cannot be allowed to disrespect or disregard, with impunity, the clear, unambiguous ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice.

Exactly! 

@Ramakant-P posted:

Rogue clique within Guyana cannot be allowed to disrespect or disregard, with impunity, the clear, unambiguous ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice.

Exactly! No more *****footing.

All the CCJ rulings have been ambiguous.  But how would you know?  

@Totaram posted:

All the CCJ rulings have been ambiguous.  But how would you know?  

It may appear ambiguous to some who don’t understand the rulings or wanted a different outcome. Did you under what the CCJ meant when they ruled 33 is >32? Where is the ambiguity in that?

@Ace posted:

It may appear ambiguous to some who don’t understand the rulings or wanted a different outcome. Did you under what the CCJ meant when they ruled 33 is >32? Where is the ambiguity in that?

Even the 33-32 ruling was murky because it did not include coercive orders.  That allowed the interpretation favored by the government.  

@Totaram posted:

Even the 33-32 ruling was murky because it did not include coercive orders.  That allowed the interpretation favored by the government.  

Ok. Let me clear it up.

33 is greater than 32. If you believe otherwise prove it.

@Ace posted:

Ok. Let me clear it up.

33 is greater than 32. If you believe otherwise prove it.

Don't be stupid.  Did I tell you I believe otherwise?  The fact is that the CCJ did not specify timelines for the election resulting from the NCM and so the government was able to continue in office.  

@Totaram posted:

Don't be stupid.  Did I tell you I believe otherwise?  The fact is that the CCJ did not specify timelines for the election resulting from the NCM and so the government was able to continue in office.  

To be fair, I think the justices are trying their best to interpret the laws and not over step their role and legislate from the bench. It’s one thing to say that an election has to be held within 3 months from a NCM it’s another thing to rule that an election to be held for instance “within the next 3 weeks” as an example. They left it up to the constitutional body (GECOM) on how best to fulfill its duties.

Similarly in the Davis case I believe it was counsel Ramkarran who argued passionately for the court to issue clear directives to resolve the election impasse.

Here is what the CCJ wrote in its judgement:

“We were addressed, with great passion, by some counsel to make a raft of consequential orders relating to the Elections. In this regard it is important to bear in mind that this case is essentially about jurisdiction, our jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, and even, implications for the High Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under the Constitution.

This Court’s jurisdiction has been invoked for the sole purpose of determining whether the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain Ms David’s application and to make the order(s) it made. Once we decide that the Court of Appeal’s order was made without jurisdiction and should therefore be set aside, there is nothing left upon which we ourselves would possess jurisdiction to make any further orders. To accept counsel’s suggestion and proceed down that path would be to engage in an exercise not dis-similar from the one embraced by the Court of Appeal majority and which we have eschewed. It is for GECOM to ensure that the election results are swiftly declared in accordance with the Laws of Guyana. ”

For them it’s a situation of “damned if you do damned if you don’t”. 

@Totaram posted:

Even the 33-32 ruling was murky because it did not include coercive orders.  That allowed the interpretation favored by the government.  

Dumbo...supreme courts tend to refrain from coercive orders. They are not enforcement institutions. They were also mindful ofthe fact that states have sovereignty rights. Its like the US Supreme court...they decide , and the execute branch enforces. 

You mimicking Granger's words...think for yourself.

@VishMahabir posted:

Dumbo...supreme courts tend to refrain from coercive orders. They are not enforcement institutions. They were also mindful ofthe fact that states have sovereignty rights. Its like the US Supreme court...they decide , and the execute branch enforces. 

You mimicking Granger's words...think for yourself.

And you are mimicking Google or Wikipedia Knucklehead!  If the courts are not enforcement institutions why do Nandlall and company keep running to them?  Basil Williams is clever enough to know that any ruling they give without coercive orders will be open to interpretation hence the current situation.    

@Totaram posted:

And you are mimicking Google or Wikipedia Knucklehead!  If the courts are not enforcement institutions why do Nandlall and company keep running to them?  Basil Williams is clever enough to know that any ruling they give without coercive orders will be open to interpretation hence the current situation.    

First time I have ever seen Basil and clever in the same sentence. You win the prize for creativity.

@Bibi Haniffa posted:

First time I have ever seen Basil and clever in the same sentence. You win the prize for creativity.

Pay attention and you may learn something.

@Totaram posted:

Pay attention and you may learn something.

Pay attention to you? You mad or wha?

@Bibi Haniffa posted:

Pay attention to you? You mad or wha?

 wha