THE CHARADE MUST NOW END


The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has ruled that the Guyana National Assembly “properly passed” a no confidence motion (NCM) against the Government on December 21. Thereupon, the clear provisions of Article 106 became “engaged.” The Court explained that Article 106 is clear and it is the responsibility of the constitutional actors in Guyana, including GECOM, to honour them. The Court said that elections should have been held since March 21, 2018, but was under pause because of the court cases. “But this Court rendered its decision on 18 June, 2019. There is no appeal from that judgment.”

In very clear language, quoted above and below, the Court said that while it is not the responsibility of the Court to fix a date for elections, it must be held in accordance with Article 106 of the Constitution. The ruling stated: “It is not, for example, the role of the Court to establish a date by or on which elections must be held, or to lay down timelines or deadlines that, in principle, are the preserve of political actors guided by constitutional imperatives. The Court must assume that these bodies and personages will exercise their responsibilities with integrity and in keeping with the unambiguous provisions of the Constitution bearing in mind that the no confidence motion was validly passed as long ago as 21 December 2018.” The complaints by Opposition lawyers about the CCJ not ordering elections by a certain date is not well founded. The Court did just that, but not in so many words.

Read more

ADJUSTING TO AN INCREASINGLY INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL CULTURE


Grumbles of dissatisfaction were heard from the PPP/C Government when the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruled against the Government and in favour of Trinidad Cement Limited (TCL) in 2009. TCL had taken the Guyana Government to the CCJ for violating the Treaty of Chaguaramas by not seeking COTED’s permission prior to importing cement from outside the Region. The Court found in favour of TCL but the Government of Guyana got off by the skin of its teeth on the claim by TCL of US$250 million damages. The PPP/C Government was held liable for several other violations of the Treaty. In the case of the Surinam company, Rudisa, which challenged at the CCJ the imposition of an ‘environmental’ tax on plastic bottles, the CCJ ordered the Guyana Government in 2014 to pay Rudisa US$6 million in damages. In 2017 in a similar case filed during the PPP’s term of office the CCJ ordered the Guyana Government to pay S. M. Jaleel & Co. Ltd., a Trinidad company, the ‘environmental’ tax unlawfully collected being US$11 million with interest. A future PPP/C Government will hopefully understand in future that there are consequences if it blithely ignores laws and treaties. It would have to adjust to an increasingly independent judicial culture. But emerging from an authoritarian political and judicial culture, this was not supposed to happen, even in strictly commercial matters which had no political implications.

Many PPP leaders and supporters were grossly disappointed when the CCJ overruled the decision in the Attorney General v Richardson case in which the Court of Appeal had decided that the constitutional provision limiting a president to two terms was unconstitutional. The CCJ decided that the provision did not violate the constitution. The effect of the decision was that the former President Jagdeo could not be nominated for a third term as president. The CCJ demonstrated that it was prepared to cut through the dense thicket of esoteric, interpretative, dicta and adopt a purposive determination to reflect the intent of the constitution.

Read more

ADJUSTING TO AN INCREASINGLY INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL CULTURE


Grumbles of dissatisfaction were heard from the PPP/C Government when the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruled against the Government and in favour of Trinidad Cement Limited (TCL) in 2009. TCL had taken the Guyana Government to the CCJ for violating the Treaty of Chaguaramas by not seeking COTED’s permission prior to importing cement from outside the Region. The Court found in favour of TCL but the Government of Guyana got off by the skin of its teeth on the claim by TCL of US$250 million damages. The PPP/C Government was held liable for several other violations of the Treaty. In the case of the Surinam company, Rudisa, which challenged at the CCJ the imposition of an ‘environmental’ tax on plastic bottles, the CCJ ordered the Guyana Government in 2014 to pay Rudisa US$6 million in damages. In 2017 in a similar case filed during the PPP’s term of office the CCJ ordered the Guyana Government to pay S. M. Jaleel & Co. Ltd., a Trinidad company, the ‘environmental’ tax unlawfully collected being US$11 million with interest. A future PPP/C Government will hopefully understand in future that there are consequences if it blithely ignores laws and treaties. It would have to adjust to an increasingly independent judicial culture. But emerging from an authoritarian political and judicial culture, this was not supposed to happen, even in strictly commercial matters which had no political implications.

Many PPP leaders and supporters were grossly disappointed when the CCJ overruled the decision in the Attorney General v Richardson case in which the Court of Appeal had decided that the constitutional provision limiting a president to two terms was unconstitutional. The CCJ decided that the provision did not violate the constitution. The effect of the decision was that the former President Jagdeo could not be nominated for a third term as president. The CCJ demonstrated that it was prepared to cut through the dense thicket of esoteric, interpretative, dicta and adopt a purposive determination to reflect the intent of the constitution.

Read more

THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS


The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has ruled in two of the most important constitutional cases that have engaged its attention in its ten-year history. The cases from Guyana have their origins in Guyana’s troubled political history and struggle for ethno-political dominance. In the first case the CCJ decided that the appointment by President Granger of the Chair of the Elections Commission on October 19, 2017, violated the Constitution. In the second case, it decided that the no confidence motion passed in the National Assembly on December 21, 2018, in a 33 to 32 vote, was lawful and valid.

President Granger declared that the Government accepted the decision but insisted that the appointment of the Chair of GECOM was not flawed, and if it was, the CCJ must let him know what the flaw is. The CCJ had already noted that President did not reveal what were the flaws in the 18 names presented to him by the Leader of the Opposition for appointment as Chair of the Elections Commission. In any event, courts do not respond to political interrogation, and it is the job of the Attorney General to advise His Excellency.

Read more

RAMJATTAN v NAGAMOOTOO [2019] AFC 1


As the general elections draw near, and the speculation surrounding the choice by the PPP’s of its presidential candidate is over, attention is now focused on the AFC’s choice of its prime ministerial candidate. The AFC apparently anticipates that there will be another coalition with APNU and that it will be offered the opportunity to choose the prime ministerial candidate. But no public indication has been forthcoming about the renewal of the coalition.

The Cummingsburg Accord, which is the foundation document for the coalition, has expired and the parties went their separate ways for the local government elections. Even if there is another coalition the prime ministerial candidate may well come from APNU. Amna Ally and Ronald Bulkan are available. APNU may well consider that the performance of the AFC at the local government elections, obtaining only four percent of the votes, does not qualify it for the prime ministerial slot. It could propose that the AFC now only deserves ministerial seats and far less than the forty percent agreed to in the Cummingsburg Accord.

Read more