The anticipated meeting between Attorney General Basil Williams SC and PPP/C MP Anil Nandlall on the nominees for the chairmanship of the Guyana Elections Commission (Gecom) has been stalled indefinitely, with both men trading blame for the delay.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Williams accused Nandlall of purposely sabotaging the meeting by requesting to meet on dates that he knew would not be available.
“He has written me and has asked me for any date after the 25th of January. He, of course, knows that I have to attend the Council of Legal Education meeting, that is why…,” Williams said.
President David Granger proposed the meeting of his Attorney General and a representative of the Leader of the Opposition to resolve the contention over the interpretation of Article 161 of the constitution, which outlines the process for the appointment of the Gecom chairperson.
Granger has rejected Jagdeo’s six nominees, while saying that the list was not in compliance with the constitution. He proposed the meeting between Williams and a representative of Jagdeo in lieu of a meeting between him and Jagdeo.
Williams said that he only received Nandlall’s letter on Monday, although President Granger had informed of his availability to speak to a representative of Jagdeo’s choice on the issue since the week before.
“It conveyed to me that there was no urgency at this time to have such a meeting and so I don’t wish to say anything else on that,” Williams said.
He did not give a date or timeframe for when he intends to host the meeting and when questioned on the matter, tersely said, “We will look at those matters when I return.”
The Council of Legal Education meeting is scheduled to be held in Jamaica from today, January 27, 2017, until tomorrow.
While Williams did not state when he will be returning to Guyana, Nandall told this newspaper that he would be ready for the meeting as his party wants a swift resolution to the matter.
He dismissed Williams’ assertions that he purposely requested a date after Wednesday knowing he had to travel. He explained that he chose dates to cater for his having to attend the funeral of a fellow parliamentarian’s mother and that the Attorney General had the opportunity to set an earlier date if he wanted
“I said in that letter, “…if I may express a preference, I would prefer to meet on a date beyond the 25th of January 2017.” In expressing this preference I took into account that Tuesday the 24th of January 2017, the Attorney General would more likely than not be engaged at Cabinet and I knew that Wednesday the 25th of January 2017, would be the funeral of my Colleague, Priya Manickchand’s mother. In the circumstances, it ought to be clear that I merely proposed a date beyond the 25th of January 2017,” Nandlall said in a press release.
“The Attorney General was always at liberty to reject my proposal and fix the meeting to a date and time convenient to his schedule and itinerary. Needless to say, I remain ready, willing and able to meet at any time,” he added.
The opposition’s next step on the matter is hinged on the outcome of the meeting between Williams and Nandlall, according to Jagdeo.
“Right now, the only thing that we are doing is acceding to the president’s request that one of my representatives meet with Basil Williams, which will happen, hopefully, next week,” he last week told a forum his party hosted on the issue at the Umana Yana.
“We will attend the meeting and listen to the arguments …that is a nightmare thing to talk to—Basil Williams—but we will do it and let us see how it goes and after that we will continue to engage…I am very conscious that I am very central in this process because I hold a constitutional post that is mentioned in the constitution… I have an open mind and I am prepared to engage in a meaningful way on my constitutional duties to see the constitution is respected in its intent and process. We will be engaged in this process,” he added.
He stressed that it was his intention when he asked for legal clarifications on the president’s declaration that the nominated candidates were unacceptable, that Granger would have had another view to consider besides that which he got from Williams.
“We have the confidence in the strength of our case and the history on this issue, we believe, is on our side to lead us to the belief that in any such confrontation our view will prevail on how the constitution is interpreted. So, when the president says he is clear about the constitution, I am also clear about its interpretation.
And I am borne out of law and the intent of the amendment to the 1980 constitution to the current one, and I am borne out of practice and, therefore, we wanted to have an opportunity to share that view what the president,” he said. “We are going to await the engagement we have there before we decide on the new course of action,” Jagdeo added.
