The opposition’s interpretation of the constitutional criteria for nominees to fill the vacancy of Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission (Gecom) and the supporting case law will be carefully examined before another meeting is held on the issue, according to Attorney-General Basil Williams SC.
Williams’ position was contained in a statement issued by the Ministry of the Presidency (MOTP) late on Wednesday night, following his meeting earlier in the day with opposition MP Anil Nandlall.
Nandlall, in a separate statement following the meeting, said that the meeting was fruitless as Williams was seemingly unprepared.
Nandlall and fellow PPP/C MP Priya Manickchand met with Williams following a recommendation made by President David Granger last month, in light of a conflict with the Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo about the criteria for nominees for the post.
Granger indicated several weeks ago that the list of nominees submitted by Jagdeo, in keeping with his constitutional duty, was unacceptable.
Article 161 (2) of the Constitution states that the Chairperson of Gecom shall be a person who holds or who has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth, or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge, or any other fit person.
According to the MOTP statement, during the meeting on Wednesday the opposition presented its own interpretation of the law, along with supporting case law and statutes, which Williams has undertaken to carefully examine before a second meeting is organised within one week.
Williams, according to the statement, said he wanted the opportunity to carefully examine Nandlall’s submissions. “Now… in order for me to treat properly with his submissions, I would be required, as in any court, any judge would have wanted an opportunity to read the cases that Mr. Nandlall cited and look at the statutes that he mentioned. It would not have been propitious to do that at that time so we’ll have to gather in the authorities, read them to see whether what he is saying is coincident with what the authorities are saying,” Williams was quoted by the MOTP as saying.
The Attorney-General noted that that while the government has already established its position, it will carefully examine the points that have been put forward by Nandlall to ensure that the interests of the country are protected. “I could have indicated to him when you look at …the provisions, one: “there shall” – it’s mandatory it tells that you must first look at the mandatory provisions, which deal with descending order: judge, retired judge, person who could be appointed a judge, who is qualified to be a judge and the …any other fit and proper person and so I could have done that and said, ‘Well I don’t agree with your interpretation.’ But I’m doing better than that because it’s not a question of Mr. Nandlall and I. It’s a question of the people of Guyana and the question of the proper law to be applied for the future in relation these matters,” he said.
According to the statement, Williams noted that during the course of the meeting Manickchand did, however, concede that it is the president’s prerogative to determine who is a ‘fit and proper’ person, in keeping with the provisions of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, by way of a letter to Williams yesterday, Nandlall requested the earliest possible date for the next meeting. “Now that you have my interpretation of Article 161 of the Constitution with legal authorities in support thereof, I request that you reciprocate and forward to me your interpretation of Article 161 with corresponding authorities, if any prior to the next meeting. You must appreciate that such industry will render our next engagement eminently more productive,” the letter said.
Following the meeting on Wednesday, Nandlall said Williams did not put forward his or the government’s interpretation of Article 161 of the Constitution, despite several requests for him to do so. “Instead, he indicated that he will need time to interpret our contentions and prepare his response,” Nandlall said, while adding that the interpretation offered had been fully and publicly ventilated in the media.
The meeting, he said, ended with the AG being unable to identify another date available in his diary for a second meeting. “I am disappointed by the lack of preparedness of the Attorney-General, which resulted in nothing tangible emerging from the engagement…. Quite frankly, I was hoping that the Attorney General would have been ready with his position on the matter today; that may have resulted in this matter being concluded with dispatch and decisively,” Nandlall said.
