Granger’s constitutional heresy is grounds for “impeachment”−Nandlall
October 17, 2016 By Editor

The ‘constitutional heresy’ being practised by the Head of State, President David Granger, is grounds for his removal from Office and even more worrying, is the silence of stakeholders such as the Guyana Bar Association (GBA) and the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA).
This is the view held by former Legal Affairs Minister and Attorney General Anil Nandlall.
Former Legal Affairs Minister and Attorney General Anil Nandlall
Former Legal Affairs Minister and Attorney General Anil Nandlall
The former legal advisor to the Donald Ramotar and Bharrat Jagdeo administrations was at the time making reference to the chronology of actions taken in relation to the Executive’s handling of the affair surrounding the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC), Carvil Duncan.
President Granger recently sent Duncan on leave from his constitutionally appointed post, despite the fact that he had already appointed a Tribunal to investigate whether the PSC Chairman should remain in the post or be removed.
According to Nandlall, “the President has flagrantly violated the letter, spirit and intent of some of the most sacrosanct constitutional provisions and indeed his actions strike at the very heart of our constitutional democracy… Presidents (or Prime Ministers, as the case may be) have been impeached for far less in democratic countries. In Guyana, this is barely front page news. And life goes on. Not a murmur from the Associations representing lawyers in the country.”
Duncan charged
Duncan has been charged and placed before the courts over the alleged theft of some $20,000 per month—argued to be his fee as a Director while employed at the Guyana Power and Light (GPL) Company.
President David Granger
President David Granger
Nandlall, over the weekend, added his voice to the fray, to condemn the decision made by President David Granger, calling it unlawful and ‘constitutional heresy.’
The former AG, in laying a base for his arguments, contended that Duncan is a member and the Chairman of the PSC and by virtue of provisions of the constitution, the Chairman of the PSC is, ex officio, a member of the Police and Judicial Service Commissions.
According to the former Legal Affairs Minister, the PSC “like the other service commissions, are institutions created by the Constitution and endowed with the fundamental role and function of guarding against executive abuses.”
He argues that the commissions are “a significant component of the most critical array of constitutional mechanisms created to protect the citizenry against executive and other excesses.”
According to Nandlall, it is for this very reason that “those who constitute these Commissions are themselves clothed with even greater security of tenure and institutional independence. To these persons, the Constitution accords the highest regime of protection and functional independence.”
According to the provisions cited by the former AG, “Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, in the exercise of its functions under this Constitution a Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.”
Constitutional protection
Nandlall maintains that as Chairman of the PSC, Duncan enjoys all these constitutional protections.
He posits that, “Constitutional purists in Guyana and across the Region must have been deeply shocked about certain disclosures Mr Duncan made a few days ago,” when in a public statement, Duncan related that he was invited to meet with the head of the Executive, the President, and the President’s Chief Aide, Joseph Harmon, Minister of State, “where of the President requested Mr Duncan’s resignation and Mr Harmon offered him a suitable financial package for his exit.” According to Nandlall, by virtue of his actions, the President has simply shoved aside the sophisticated network of mechanisms of protection enshrined in the Constitution of Guyana.
“This constitutional heresy was compounded by ‘the blood on the carpet’ reference – whatever that means… In short, the President has flagrantly violated the letter, spirit, and intent of some of the most sacrosanct constitutional provisions, and indeed his actions strike at the very heart of our constitutional democracy,” said Nandlall.
Making his case for the impeachment of President Granger, Nandlall points to Article 94 of the Constitution of Guyana which provides that “The President may be removed from office if he or she commits any violation of this Constitution or any gross misconduct.”
Recounting the brouhaha surrounding Duncan, Nandlall observed that “While certain criminal charges are pending before a Magistrate at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts against Mr Duncan, the Government decides to trigger a constitutional process to remove him from office on the ground that the pendency of those charges can interfere with the discharge of his constitutional functions.”According to Nandlall, the engagement between Duncan and the President alone “renders this constitutional process farcical.”He points out that as provided for in the Constitution, the Prime Minister has already advised the President that Duncan’s removal from office should be investigated—As a result, the President has established a tribunal which has already begun its work. Nandlall said he has since already made an application for the tribunal not to proceed with its mandate “on the ground that the tribunal itself is legally defective and that it is about to embark upon a course which is manifestly unconstitutional, unlawful and illegal.”

Source:

http://www.guyana-times.com/gr...unds-for-impeachment−nandlall/