Ramkarran defends criticism of CCJ over no confidence motion ruling

Former Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran has defended his sharp criticism of the CCJ for not issuing definitive orders in the no confidence motion case and he yesterday pointed out that the High Court here is now being approached for various rulings which should have been issued by Guyana’s top court.

Ramkarran, a Senior Counsel, raised eyebrows two Sundays ago when in his column in this newspaper he flayed the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) for leaving key decisions to the “constitutional actors”.

“The timid, indecisive and ineffectual decision-making of the CCJ has brought elections no closer, has left the Guyanese people defenceless in the face of an egregious assault on their constitutional rights and has left open its decision to more than one interpretation. The Caribbean Court of Justice has failed Guyana”, Ramkarran said in his August 25th column.

His attack on the court triggered a letter to Stabroek News from Andrew Pollard SC who defended the CCJ’s decision and criticised Ramkarran.

In his Sunday Stabroek column yesterday, Ramkarran maintained his criticism of the CCJ decision.

He argued that the CCJ has broad  powers to make the orders that had been sought in the no-confidence motion cases.

“Without serious justification, it declined to do so. Its timid and ineffectual decision has intensified the constitutional chaos in Guyana. High Court cases are now being brought for orders and declarations that the CCJ ought to have made. In their absence, the Government has refused to act on the CCJ’s decision”, he said.

Ramkarran said that Pollard should know that criticizing judges and courts in far sharper language than his (Ramkarran’s) is quite an accepted activity in normal countries.

“What is not normal is for a court that finds constitutional violations, to decline to make orders to rectify those violations, but relies instead on the ‘integrity’ of politicians. But no word from Mr. Pollard about this abject failure of the CCJ and of the Government’s continuing violations of the Constitution.

“And Mr. Pollard seeks to hide behind the ridiculous red herring that I would have been satisfied if the CCJ had fixed a date for elections. No one ever made such a nonsensical suggestion – not me nor the lawyers appearing in the cases before the CCJ, because everyone knows only the President can fix a date. But had the CCJ ordered that the Cabinet must resign and that elections were due by 21 March, and it’s now up to Parliament, or by 18 September, it would have been enforcing the provisions of the Constitution which it was asked to do. That would have made all the difference. But it declined. (As a)  result the Cabinet has refused to resign and the President has not set a date for elections. The Government’s excuse is that the CCJ made no order”, Ramkarran asserted.

Ramkarran said that as far as can be ascertained, the CCJ’s basis for not directing that the Cabinet must resign and not ordering the date by which the elections must be held, is contained in the following passages: “Their meaning [the provisions of the Constitution] is clear and it is the responsibility of constitutional actors in Guyana to honour them….Article 106 of the Constitution invests in the President and the National Assembly (and implicitly in Gecom), responsibilities that impact on the precise timing of the elections which must be held.” 

But Ramkarran said that the “constitutional actors” did not honour the provisions of the Constitution. He said that the date for elections has not been fixed and that was why the matters were in court and why the CCJ was asked to make consequential orders and directives.

“The flimsy reasons for the CCJ to therefore fail to direct that the Cabinet must resign and order an outside date for elections, in accordance with the Constitution, are baffling”, Ramkarran stated.

Ramkarran added that criticisms of decisions of the CCJ and of courts in Guyana should be “more not less, using frank and outspoken language where necessary, but always respectfully, as I did. I will do so again if the occasion arises. The Judges of the CCJ, and our own judges for that matter, are expected to understand these basic principles”.

In his letter in the August 28 edition of Stabroek News, Pollard described Ramkarran’s language as “regrettable” and said “The CCJ interpreted the constitutional and legal issues brought before it, ruled definitively on these issues, and then stated that it was now up to the other two branches of the State to perform their constitutionally demarcated duties. In the present situation, the political actors must all display a certain level of maturity and undertake their respective functions. They have their own clearly constitutionally defined responsibilities and functions. Mr. Ramkarran cannot expect the Court to blithely assume these, and it is manifestly unfair for him to pillory it for not doing so when the Court has done its own part which is to elucidate the law”.

In his August 25th column in the Sunday Stabroek, Ramkarran had said “The CCJ’s intent to protect constitutional propriety is not in doubt. But its reliance on the integrity of third world politicians to do what is right was deeply short-sighted and mistaken in the absence of coercive remedies. The decision’s failure to bring forth elections will leave a permanent scar on Guyana’s polity”.

The CCJ was asked to rule on various cases emanating from the motion of no confidence passed against the government in Parliament on December 21, 2018. It ruled that the motion was validly passed and that the relevant sections of the constitution were now applicable. It however issued no coercive orders.