Attorney General Doodnauth Singh says the president of the country cannot be challenged in a court of law.
His assertions came on Tuesday in response to CN Sharma’s legal challenge to President Bharrat Jagdeo’s recent four-month suspension of his television licence, which is being heard in the High Court before Justice William Ramlal.
Ramlal had ordered on Monday after a lengthy submission by defence counsel Nigel Hughes that the Attorney-General appear before him in the matter the following day since there were too many unanswered questions.
The lawyer during his arguments raised the issue of the president sitting and determining a complaint in which he was the subject.
At the start of Tuesday’s hearing, Singh said that he received the proceedings that morning to appear in court in the afternoon.
He said that his submission is that the proceeding “is not maintainable in that it seeks to challenge a decision taken by President Bharrat Jagdeo,” and he added that when one looks at the various declarations and orders, it is clear that it is a direct challenge to presidential powers.
The Attorney General then asked the court to make some points but was asked by Justice Ramlal if he did not wish to submit them in writing. He however said that he wanted to make a summary of his arguments – preliminary points.
Singh had initially told the court that his arguments should last for about half of an hour but that stretched into more than an hour with the attorney general arguing that the president is an executive authority and could not be challenged. To substantiate his arguments, he made several references to sections of the Trinidad and Tobago, Ghana, and Sri Lanka constitutions as well as Guyana’s which focused on the challenging of presidential powers and the prohibition from instituting proceedings against the president.
He said that he cited the constitutions to demonstrate that the presidential immunity in Guyana’s constitution conforms to international standards.
Singh argued that the powers exercised by the Minister of Information reside in the president anyway, adding that “the president is a president. He cannot be transferred into a minister.” He repeatedly stressed that the president is immune according to the constitution and as such his decision cannot be challenged.
However, Hughes in his response contended that in the letter sent to his client, President Jagdeo was not only acting as the president but also the minister with responsibility for telecommunications and as such can be challenged.
He submitted that the letter was signed by Jagdeo as president yet he made his capacity as Minister of Information clear in the opening.
Private capacity
The defence counsel said that the reference by Singh to the various constitutions does not lend any assistance regarding the immunity of the president. He said that those constitutions are different from our provisions. He submitted that immunity refers only to the president in his private capacity, not official capacity.
Both parties are expected to submit their arguments in writing and the case continues on Wednesday.
In the application before the High Court, which was made by Hughes appearing in association with attorneys-at-law Stephen Fraser and Mark Waldron, Sharma is requesting a conservatory order restraining Jagdeo, who is the Minister of Information, his servants and or agents from suspending and or continuing to suspend his licence until the hearing and determination of the motion.
He is also seeking a conservatory order staying the suspension of his licence on Friday last until the matter is determined. Additionally, the television station owner is requesting an order nisi for Jagdeo to show cause why his decision to sit, hear and determine the complaint in which the subject of the complaint involved a threat made against him should not be quashed as a decision which is ultra vires, in breach of the rules of natural justice and fairness and null and void.
President Jagdeo last Friday ordered CNS Channel Six off the air for four months over an on-air licence infringement committed in February, a move that Sharma referred to as dictatorial and one that has sparked protests, with some calling for a reversal.
In the letter addressed to Sharma and dispatched a few hours after a meeting at his office to determine what would happen to the station’s licence, Jagdeo said he found Sharma’s explanations unsatisfactory as to why the offending broadcasts continued on CNS Channel 6, even after Sharma recognised that the content of the programme infringed the conditions of his licence.
A subsequent release from the Office of the President (OP) said Sharma was found to have committed serious infringements of the conditions of the licence by broadcasting on four occasions, including three rebroadcasts, content that advocated the killing of the Head of State and Head of Government.
The OP release said Jagdeo is the sole authority vested with power to decide whether a licensee has breached the terms and conditions of their licence and/or the provisions of the Act or the regulations and whether any sanctions may be imposed, adding that the Act provides that the minister may suspend or cancel the licence for such breaches.
Further, it stated that Sharma sought to prevent the hearing of the infringement matter by moving to the court and in his capacity as Minister of Information, Jagdeo heard Sharma on the charges and allowed a full opportunity to the station owner last Friday to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled or suspended. According to the statement, Sharma acknowledged at the hearing that the broadcasts infringed the conditions of the licence and the law.
