The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has refused Attorney General (AG) Basil Williams’ request to introduce what he says is new evidence in the appeal dealing with the controversial passage of the December 21st no-confidence motion against government.
In an order issued to the attorneys involved in the case, by the Trinidad-based court of last resort for Guyana, it made it clear that the AG’s request had been refused. Though the court had completed hearing arguments almost a month prior, Williams last Thursday sought leave to have what he described as new evidence added.
He had been hoping to have introduced a purported admission by government defector Charrandass Persaud, who voted in favour of the opposition-sponsored motion, that he was aware that he was not eligible to be a Member of Parliament (MP) because of his dual citizenship.
Under Part 9.7 of the Caribbean Court of Justice (Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules 2019, however, Persaud’s attorney Sanjeev Datadin, in a responding affidavit challenging Williams’ request, had asked the court not to entertain a hearing.
Part 9.7 provides for such applications to be disposed of by the court without a hearing being convened.
The court stated in the order issued that the state had already advanced in the appeal hearing that Persaud, being an attorney, was well aware on the date he was nominated was disqualified from being an MP because of his dual citizenship.
Moreover, the court noted that given the scope and context of the legal issues presented before it, the introduction of further facts to establish that Persaud was aware he was a dual citizen at the material time, “will add little if anything relevant to all the sub-stratum of fact for the court’s consideration.”
In those circumstances, and considering Part 9.7 of the CCJ Rules, the court said that Williams’ request would be refused.
When he filed his application to the court last week, Williams said that certain evidence had become available to him, “and which will probably have an important influence on the outcome of this appeal, and which is credible.” Datadin had, however, said that Williams had simply taken comments made by his client out of context and was using them to delay the work of the court.
Williams said that on May 11th 2019, the day after oral arguments were heard by the court, Persaud, gave an interview which was broadcast on the internet and in which, among other things, he said “I knew that people with dual citizenship could not hold a seat in parliament.”
Article 155 (1) (a) of the Constitution, provides, “No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly who is, by virtue of his or her own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state.”
Williams said an important issue in the state’s case revolves around whether Persaud knew that he was unqualified to be a candidate, which would have resultantly disqualified him from sitting in the National Assembly.
The CCJ on Monday announced next Tuesday as the tentative date for delivering its judgments connected to the no-confidence appeals.
Among its arguments, the government contends that the motion was invalidated on the basis that Persaud sat in the National Assembly in violation of the Constitution because of his dual citizenship.
In keeping with pronouncements made by the High Court and the Guyana Court of Appeal, all dual citizen MPs on both sides of the House have since resigned.
Though initially accepting that the motion was validly passed, government days later did an about-face, arguing that 34 votes, which represents an “absolute” majority of the 65 members of the House, as opposed to a “simple” majority of 33, were needed. The state’s case is that in Guyana’s 65-member National Assembly, half would result in a fraction of 32.5, which has to be rounded to the next whole number, 33, and that in accordance with the practice and the application of the meaning of what is needed for an “absolute majority” one has to be added to calculate that required majority, 34.
The no-confidence motion, sponsored by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, was declared passed by House Speaker Dr Barton 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 motion 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.
