Former President Donald Ramotar has himself confirmed that while he never actually signed the application leasing Red House to the Cheddi Jagan Research Committee Inc (CJRCI), he did sanction its approval.
Ramotar made the disclosure during an extensive cross-examination on the transaction by Attorney-General (AG) Basil Williams SC, who is contending that in the absence of a president’s signature on the application, the lease is void.
The CJRCI has challenged the December 31st, 2016 revocation of its lease by current President David Granger and it has secured a conservatory order to freeze the government’s instruction that it vacate the High Street premises.
Ramotar previously said that while he was president, he authorised and sanctioned the issuance of the lease of Red House to the CJRCI. Williams has, however, contended that contrary to what the CJRCI has advanced, there is no evidence of formal approval or sanction by Ramotar at that time. All matters relating to application for a lease, Williams said, are required to be sequentially recorded on note sheets in the case file; but he noted that in the instant case, this was not done.
Former Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall, who served under the Ramotar administration and by whom the CJRCI is being represented, is, however, contending that while the State Lands Act does repose in the president the power to sanction the lease of state lands, it is silent on how exactly that sanction ought to be executed.
Responding to questions from Williams, the former president said on Thursday that although he thought that the National Trust was the body responsible for the Red House, since it belonged to government, “the government could lease it.”
He said he subsequently learnt that it was controlled by National Trust but added, “At the time, I knew it (Red House) belonged to government.”
Stating that he sanctioned approval for the lease of Red House in 2012, after he became president, and acknowledging that the CJRCI had been occupying the premises since 2000, Ramotar agreed with Williams that the CJRCI had in fact been in occupation without the issuance of a lease.
Williams subsequently turned his focus on the institute’s occupation of the building from 2000, much to the chagrin of Nandlall, who pointed out that Ramotar had not been placed on the stand to talk about what happened in 2000, but rather specifically of his sanctioning of the 2012 lease and its validity.
“We not concerned if they got there by conquest or trespass. We want to know if the lease that they have now is valid,” Nandlall blurted out in objection while Williams spoke, causing the judge to repeatedly upbraid them both, while saying that they were not in Parliament.
Oral permission
As the proceedings continued, Ramotar was asked by Williams whether he was aware that the institute had made application for lease in 2006. He said he had no reason to doubt that that was so.
Ramotar, who said that he was a founding member of the institute, declared at this point that he was not involved in its day-to-day running. He agreed with Williams that applications for the lease of Red House to the research institute had been made thrice under the presidencies of Bharrat Jagdeo—sometime in 2006, in 2010 and again in 2011.
From records shown to him, Ramotar also agreed that Jagdeo never signed those lease applications but he disagreed with Williams’ assertions that it meant that he disapproved of the lease to the institute.
Ramotar said that while he could not say why the former president did not sign the applications, he knows that the CJRCI was not in occupation without permission.
Ramotar agreed that because the property belonged to the government, it would need the president’s approval before being leased. The distinction he sought to draw, however, and his point of disagreement with Williams, was the manner in which that approval had to be given.
The former president’s contention is that approval could be given in the absence of the president’s signature and he noted that the president can sanction and give the permission orally.
Ramotar agreed that the application for the lease was approved under his own presidency in 2012 and that he did so by instructing the Commissioner of Lands and Surveys Doorga Persaud to sign the lease. This, he said, was the manner in which he sanctioned lease of the property to CJRCI, while maintaining that he did not himself have to sign the application brought to him. He said that that application was taken to him with numerous others.
According to him he then went through them “and I approved and disapproved of applications.” “I never signed any approval. The Commissioner of Lands acted on my instructions,” the former president said.
He told Williams that he does not know that there is any requirement that he personally signs the application or any lease, but just that he had to sanction and give his approval.
Ramotar became president on November 28th, 2011. He disagreed with Williams that when he became president he too failed to approve the lease. “I approved the lease when it came to my attention,” he said.
After Williams’ cross-examination of Ramotar, Nandlall said that he did not have to conduct any reexamination of the witness.
Williams, in his closing submissions, maintained that the application and or the lease needed to be signed and that since this was not done it voided the document from the outset, thus making the CJRCI trespassers.
He argued that it could not be the practice in any civilized society where state property could be passed without the president annotating the relevant document to so reflect. He said that reposing such powers in the Commissioner of Lands and Surveys could lead to that person embarking on a frolic and issuing the lands to their “friends, families and cronies.”
It is for this reason, he said, that there is the requirement that a president sign or affix their initials to the relevant documents.
For his part, however, Nandlall reiterated his position, stating that there was no law requiring the president to sign or initial the application/lease in any form nor did he have to issue any written approval.
According to Nandlall, if it was parliament’s intention to have the president sign approval of the application or lease, it would have so indicated.
Instead, he said Parliament used the word “sanction” in the legislation, without going further to say what constitutes sanction. Thus, he said, it was then left for a president and Commissioner to decide on the form of sanction to be employed.
With the trial having now concluded, Justice George has adjourned the matter until December 17th for ruling.
