Recognizing what it says is the importance of the challenges filed to the controversial passage of the December 21st no-confidence motion against the David Granger-led APNU+AFC coalition government, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will commence hearing the appeals a day earlier than previously announced.
Those hearings will now commence on May 9th at 10am.
Meanwhile, hearing of the challenge to the decision of the Guyana Court of Appeal to uphold President Granger’s appointment of Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chairman James Patterson remains set for May 8th.
At a pretrial review hearing yesterday morning, President of the Trinidad-based court of last resort for Guyana, Justice Adrian Saunders said that the court appreciated the voluminous depth of the written submissions laid over to the court by all the parties, and in the circumstances has decided to set aside two full days for hearings.
To this end, rigid timelines have been set by the court by which attorneys are expected to abide when they commence their oral submissions on May 9th up until conclusion on the following day.
Thereafter, the court will be expected to hand down its ruling. No date has yet been set for this, nor has any indication been given when it is likely going to be delivered.
The court noted that it had received all the written submissions requested from the respective parties within the timeframe previously set by the court.
At yesterday’s hearing, Sanjeev Datadin, counsel for former APNU+AFC MP Charrandass Persaud who voted in favour of the Opposition-sponsored no-confidence motion, was unsuccessful in his bid to have the court issue a directive against a planned sitting of the National Assembly scheduled for tomorrow.
According to Datadin, it had come to his attention through press reports, that not only will there be a sitting of the House, but that plans are also afoot for the passing of legislation “and to do things related to finance…and companies in the oil and gas sector.”
Stating, however, that the CCJ is yet to rule on the validity of the passage of the no-confidence motion which he said will have implications one way or the other on the vote of December 21st, Datadin urged that any such sitting of the National Assembly be refrained from.
In response, however, Justice Saunders said that the court will offer no commentary on that issue, especially since there is no such application before it.
To this end, Datadin has indicated his intention to properly make the necessary filing embodying his request before the court.
On March 29th, noting that the matters are all related, the court consolidated the three separate appeals filed on the no-confidence motion.
The three challenges to the motion are Christopher Ram against the Attorney General (AG), the Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo and Minister of State Joseph Harmon; Jagdeo against the AG, Speaker of the National Assembly Dr Barton Scotland and Harmon; and Charrandass Persaud against Compton Herbert Reid, Dr Scotland, Jagdeo and Harmon.
With the challenge to Patterson’s appointment potentially having a direct bearing on the final determination of the no-confidence motion appeals, the court set the hearing in the matter to precede them.
Previously underscoring what he described as the importance of GECOM in the proceedings involving the no-confidence motion, Justice Saunders had ordered that the entity be added as a party. In the same vein, the court also ordered that Patterson be added as a party to the appeal contesting his appointment.
Attorney for the Commission, Excellence Dazzell, informed the court yesterday that it will not be contesting the matter, but instead will abide by whatever ruling the court makes.
Yesterday’s pretrial re-view was heard by Justice Saunders, along with Justices Jacob Witt and Maureen Rajnauth-Lee.
The no-confidence motion, sponsored by Jagdeo, was declared passed by Speaker Dr Scotland following a vote in its favour by then APNU+AFC parliamentarian Persaud on the night of December 21st.
Following a challenge by government in the High Court, Chief Justice (Ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire found that even though Persaud was made a parliamentarian in violation of the Constitution, his vote was valid and that the December 21st no-confidence motion against the APNU+AFC government was validly passed with the votes of 33 elected members of the 65-member Assembly. She has also ruled that the passage of the motion should have triggered the immediate resignation of the Cabinet.
The Guyana Court of Appeal, by a majority decision, on March 22nd overturned the Chief Justice’s ruling, saying that the correct mathematical formula for finding the “absolute” majority was not used.
While Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards (Ag) and Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory agreed that 34 votes were required for the motion to be carried, Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud dissented.
Meanwhile, the matter regarding Patterson’s appointment stems from an application filed by PPP executive Secretary Zulfikar Mustapha for urgent hearing, which the CCJ also granted.
Handing down its ruling in October last year, the local appellate court upheld the legality of President Granger’s unilateral appointment of Patterson, a retired judge, as Chairman of GECOM, saying that he did not act unreasonably in doing so.
The court disagreed with arguments advanced by Mustapha’s attorney that President Granger’s resort to the constitutional proviso in Article 161 (2) for the unilateral appointment of Patterson was unlawfully invoked and resultantly dismissed his appeal of a previous ruling of Justice George-Wiltshire.
Mustapha is arguing, among other things, that the decision of the Guyana Court of Appeal failed to give effect to the “letter and spirit” of the constitution.
In addition to AG Basil Williams SC, the state is being represented by Eamon Courtenay SC and other attorneys.
Ram is being represented by attorney Kamal Ramkarran.
Representing Reid is Neil Boston SC and other attorneys, while Jagdeo is being represented by a legal team comprising Douglas Mendes SC, attorney Anil Nandlall and a battery of other lawyers.
Representing Harmon is attorney Roysdale Forde, while Scotland is being represented by attorney Rafiq Khan SC, who has said that his client will not be contesting the challenge before the court, but will abide by the ruling of the court.
