Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

UNRULY HORSE: A constitutional conundrum

7:08 / 07.02.2019 iNews Guyana, By: Mohabir Anil Nandlall, MP; Attorney-at-Law, https://theworldnews.net/gy-ne...titutional-conundrum

https://i2.wp.com/www.inewsguyana.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/unruly-horse.jpg?fit=619%2C331&ssl=1

By: Mohabir Anil Nandlall, MP; Attorney-at-Law

The Attorney General has filed appeals against the Chief Justice’s ruling in two of the three cases filed in relation to the No-Confidence Motion: the case filed by the AG and the case filed by Christopher Ram.

The attorney-at-law for Joseph Harmon has also lodged an appeal. There is no doubt that the lawyers for Campton Reid will also appeal in due course. The Leader of the Opposition will not appeal, as he is not dissatisfied with any material aspect of the Chief Justice’s decisions.

I wish to make it emphatically clear that none of the appeals filed, nor any which may be filed, has, or will have the effect of staying the rulings made by the Honourable Chief Justice.

Indeed, I maintain that the Chief Justice merely granted, what in law, is called “declarations”. For example, her Honour declared that the No-Confidence Motion was validly passed; that Charrandass Persaud’s dual citizenship disqualified him from being elected to sit in Parliament; that notwithstanding that disqualification, his vote remain valid; that 33 votes were sufficient to pass the No-Confidence Motion; that the Cabinet “was resigned” upon the passing of the No-Confidence Motion and that the Government must remain in office, notwithstanding its defeat, and that elections must be held within three months of the date that the No-Confidence Motion was passed; and that the Government must resign when a new President is sworn-in, consequent upon those elections.

A microscopic examination of those pronouncements made by the Chief Justice will lead to the ineluctable realization that the learned Hearing Judge made no coercive or injunctive orders. In other words, no part of the rulings compelled any act to be done, or prohibited, any act from being done. Therefore, there is simply nothing to “stay”, nor conserve, nor preserve. The rulings consisted merely of declarations in respect of the status quo in accordance with interpretations placed upon the relevant constitutional provisions.

Significantly, the Constitution does not vest in the Judiciary any power, or authority, to stop that three months period for the holding of elections after a successful No-Confidence Motion, from running. In consequence, there is no Court within the hierarchical judicial structure that can lawfully make any order, which can have the impact of delaying the elections, irrespective of the circumstances.

It is not that the framers of the Constitution failed to address their minds to the eventuality of an extension of time. They certainly did so, as is reflected in Article 106 (7) of the Constitution. However, they sagaciously vested that power, not in the Judiciary, but in the Legislature, to be exercised by virtue of a two-thirds majority vote, should the circumstances warrant such an extension.

In the same mould, GECOM, the body exclusively charged by the Constitution with the holding of elections, has no discretion and is certainly not empowered to plea a lack of readiness to hold elections, when elections are due. Under the Constitution, elections are due at any time fixed by the President by way of a Proclamation, or in cases otherwise determined by the Constitution, for example, within three months after the passage of a No-Confidence Motion. When either of these circumstances manifest itself, GECOM must be ready to hold elections. The Constitution offers no alternative.

The current state of affairs, which documents the President and his Government’s refusal to comply with the Constitution and the pronouncements of the Chief Justice, coupled with GECOM’s lack of readiness to hold elections when they are constitutionally due, have the conjoint effect of catapulting the nation’s state of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana into the realm of unconstitutionality and an anarchic existence, not witnessed in the Caribbean, perhaps, since the Grenadian “revolution” in 1983.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Demerara_Guy posted:

One may/will have rights to do anything.

Constitutional rights are specific issues.

A Judge's decision on issues of the constitution is paramount.

Any way you look at it the constitution will be breached by the unreadiness of Gecom to hold elections within 90 days and Granger refusal to resign his cabinet. As for Granger, he said he's is within his constitutional right to remain the president of Guyana until a new president is sworn in. Since when the PPP is so right about everything? Haven't the supreme court ruled again them on GECOM "fit and proper" chairman?

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Prince posted:
Demerara_Guy posted:

One may/will have rights to do anything.

Constitutional rights are specific issues.

A Judge's decision on issues of the constitution is paramount.

Any way you look at it the constitution will be breached by the unreadiness of Gecom to hold elections within 90 days and Granger refusal to resign his cabinet. As for Granger, he said he's is within his constitutional right to remain the president of Guyana until a new president is sworn in. Since when the PPP is so right about everything? Haven't the supreme court ruled again them on GECOM "fit and proper" chairman?

Where and who said that? Can you show any proof of this?

FM
skeldon_man posted:
Prince posted:
Demerara_Guy posted:

One may/will have rights to do anything.

Constitutional rights are specific issues.

A Judge's decision on issues of the constitution is paramount.

Any way you look at it the constitution will be breached by the unreadiness of Gecom to hold elections within 90 days and Granger refusal to resign his cabinet. As for Granger, he said he's is within his constitutional right to remain the president of Guyana until a new president is sworn in. Since when the PPP is so right about everything? Haven't the supreme court ruled again them on GECOM "fit and proper" chairman?

Where and who said that? Can you show any proof of this?

One example:

Haven't the supreme court ruled again them on GECOM "fit and proper" chairman?

FM
Prince posted:
skeldon_man posted:
Prince posted:
Demerara_Guy posted:

One may/will have rights to do anything.

Constitutional rights are specific issues.

A Judge's decision on issues of the constitution is paramount.

Any way you look at it the constitution will be breached by the unreadiness of Gecom to hold elections within 90 days and Granger refusal to resign his cabinet. As for Granger, he said he's is within his constitutional right to remain the president of Guyana until a new president is sworn in. Since when the PPP is so right about everything? Haven't the supreme court ruled again them on GECOM "fit and proper" chairman?

Where and who said that? Can you show any proof of this?

One example:

Haven't the supreme court ruled again them on GECOM "fit and proper" chairman?

Your statement has no relevance to your questions.

FM
skeldon_man posted:
Prince posted:
skeldon_man posted:
Prince posted:
Demerara_Guy posted:

One may/will have rights to do anything.

Constitutional rights are specific issues.

A Judge's decision on issues of the constitution is paramount.

Any way you look at it the constitution will be breached by the unreadiness of Gecom to hold elections within 90 days and Granger refusal to resign his cabinet. As for Granger, he said he's is within his constitutional right to remain the president of Guyana until a new president is sworn in. Since when the PPP is so right about everything? Haven't the supreme court ruled again them on GECOM "fit and proper" chairman?

Where and who said that? Can you show any proof of this?

One example:

Haven't the supreme court ruled again them on GECOM "fit and proper" chairman?

Your statement has no relevance to your questions.

I am afraid you will not be able to see relavance in anything since you're party affiliated. Useless trying. 

FM
Prince posted:
Demerara_Guy posted:

One may/will have rights to do anything.

Constitutional rights are specific issues.

A Judge's decision on issues of the constitution is paramount.

Any way you look at it the constitution will be breached by the unreadiness of Gecom to hold elections within 90 days and Granger refusal to resign his cabinet. As for Granger, he said he's is within his constitutional right to remain the president of Guyana until a new president is sworn in. Since when the PPP is so right about everything?

Haven't the supreme court ruled again them on GECOM "fit and proper" chairman?

Take the time to read extremely s-l-o-w and carefully the decision of the Judge on this matter.

The fundamental issue that led to the court case was on the presentation of a list of candidates by the Leader of the Opposition to the President.

Succinctly ...

-- Leader of the Opposition submits a list the the President.

-- President selects a person as Chairman or rejects the entire list.

-- If the entire list is rejected, the Opposition Leader submits another list.

Of note ---

-- The Opposition Leader resubmitted lists on ALL OCCASIONS.

-- President rejected the last list and UNILATERALLY appointed Chairman.

Of importance ...

The ONLY time the President can unilaterally appoint a Chairman is when the Opposition FAILS TO SUBMIT a list of candidates.

As noted above ...

-- Leader of the Opposition submitted a list of candidates on all occasions.

FM

D_G, I don't need to read slowly to understand. Bottom line, the PPP lost the case. The Supreme Court is the guardian of the constitution and the buck stops right there. 

Perhaps you can explain why the recount from the last election is still sitting in court as we speak. Why Jagdeo and his people did not picket the court for his recount result. 

FM
Prince posted:

D_G, I don't need to read slowly to understand. Bottom line, the PPP lost the case. The Supreme Court is the guardian of the constitution and the buck stops right there.

When you read/understand, you will have better understanding of issues.

Bottom line ...

1. The Leader of the Opposition presented his selections according to the requirements of the constitution.

2. The President neglected the lists and made his unilateral appointment, contrary to the constitution.

FM
Prince posted:

Perhaps you can explain why the recount from the last election is still sitting in court as we speak. Why Jagdeo and his people did not picket the court for his recount result. 

Your exclusive choice to pursue the reason(s).

FM
Demerara_Guy posted:

UNRULY HORSE: A constitutional conundrum

7:08 / 07.02.2019 iNews Guyana, By: Mohabir Anil Nandlall, MP; Attorney-at-Law, https://theworldnews.net/gy-ne...titutional-conundrum

https://i2.wp.com/www.inewsguyana.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/unruly-horse.jpg?fit=619%2C331&ssl=1

By: Mohabir Anil Nandlall, MP; Attorney-at-Law

The Attorney General has filed appeals against the Chief Justice’s ruling in two of the three cases filed in relation to the No-Confidence Motion: the case filed by the AG and the case filed by Christopher Ram.

The attorney-at-law for Joseph Harmon has also lodged an appeal. There is no doubt that the lawyers for Campton Reid will also appeal in due course. The Leader of the Opposition will not appeal, as he is not dissatisfied with any material aspect of the Chief Justice’s decisions.

I wish to make it emphatically clear that none of the appeals filed, nor any which may be filed, has, or will have the effect of staying the rulings made by the Honourable Chief Justice.

Indeed, I maintain that the Chief Justice merely granted, what in law, is called “declarations”. For example, her Honour declared that the No-Confidence Motion was validly passed; that Charrandass Persaud’s dual citizenship disqualified him from being elected to sit in Parliament; that notwithstanding that disqualification, his vote remain valid; that 33 votes were sufficient to pass the No-Confidence Motion; that the Cabinet “was resigned” upon the passing of the No-Confidence Motion and that the Government must remain in office, notwithstanding its defeat, and that elections must be held within three months of the date that the No-Confidence Motion was passed; and that the Government must resign when a new President is sworn-in, consequent upon those elections.

A microscopic examination of those pronouncements made by the Chief Justice will lead to the ineluctable realization that the learned Hearing Judge made no coercive or injunctive orders. In other words, no part of the rulings compelled any act to be done, or prohibited, any act from being done. Therefore, there is simply nothing to “stay”, nor conserve, nor preserve. The rulings consisted merely of declarations in respect of the status quo in accordance with interpretations placed upon the relevant constitutional provisions.

Significantly, the Constitution does not vest in the Judiciary any power, or authority, to stop that three months period for the holding of elections after a successful No-Confidence Motion, from running. In consequence, there is no Court within the hierarchical judicial structure that can lawfully make any order, which can have the impact of delaying the elections, irrespective of the circumstances.

It is not that the framers of the Constitution failed to address their minds to the eventuality of an extension of time. They certainly did so, as is reflected in Article 106 (7) of the Constitution. However, they sagaciously vested that power, not in the Judiciary, but in the Legislature, to be exercised by virtue of a two-thirds majority vote, should the circumstances warrant such an extension.

In the same mould, GECOM, the body exclusively charged by the Constitution with the holding of elections, has no discretion and is certainly not empowered to plea a lack of readiness to hold elections, when elections are due. Under the Constitution, elections are due at any time fixed by the President by way of a Proclamation, or in cases otherwise determined by the Constitution, for example, within three months after the passage of a No-Confidence Motion. When either of these circumstances manifest itself, GECOM must be ready to hold elections. The Constitution offers no alternative.

The current state of affairs, which documents the President and his Government’s refusal to comply with the Constitution and the pronouncements of the Chief Justice, coupled with GECOM’s lack of readiness to hold elections when they are constitutionally due, have the conjoint effect of catapulting the nation’s state of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana into the realm of unconstitutionality and an anarchic existence, not witnessed in the Caribbean, perhaps, since the Grenadian “revolution” in 1983.

Clear and concise. Nandlall writes with targeted purpose. Meanwhile the PNC bais are running helter skelter clutching at straws.

FM
Prince posted:

D_G, I don't need to read slowly to understand. Bottom line, the PPP lost the case. The Supreme Court is the guardian of the constitution and the buck stops right there. 

Perhaps you can explain why the recount from the last election is still sitting in court as we speak. Why Jagdeo and his people did not picket the court for his recount result. 

Would it help if he wrote it slowly or he writes the same about 4 times?

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×