Dear Editor,
My attention was drawn to a paid advertisement by the Attorney General Chambers published in yesterday’s newspapers, bearing the caption “What PPP/C applied to the CCJ for vs what the CCJ ruled”.
The advertisement is divided into two columns. In one column, it lists the Orders prayed for by the Leader of the Opposition in the No-Confidence Motion cases and the Orders prayed for by Zulfikar Mustapha in relation to the case challenging the appointment of James Patterson as chairman of GECOM.
In the other column, there are politically convenient and selective excerpts of the judgments plucked out of context to serve the political agenda of the author of the advertisement. In so doing, the author omits to include passages of the judgments which do not advance his political cause.
The clear objective of this advertisement is to demonstrate that the specific Orders sought by the Leader of the Opposition and Zulfikar Mustapha were refused by the CCJ.
However, the author deceptively omits the parts of the judgments which say emphatically, that those Orders were not granted because the Constitution itself, specifically and adequately, provides for what must happen when a No-Confidence Motion is passed in the National Assembly, that is to say, Cabinet, including the President, must resign, elections must be held within three months and within that three-month period, the Government remains in Office as a “caretaker” until the next President is sworn-in.
It is clear, that the author wishes to portray that because the specific Orders prayed for were refused, then the judgments of the CCJ can be ignored by the Government.
So by analogy, if a wife goes to the court and complains that her husband consistently beats her and she prays for an Order restraining the husband from beating her and the Magistrate refuses to grant such an Order on the ground the laws of the land already prohibit the husband from beating her since assault, actual bodily harm and wounding etc. are all criminal offences, then because the Order was refused, the husband can continue to beat his wife.
There is no other way of describing such line of reasoning, other than to say that it is an expression of unparalleled “dunceness”.
This type of reasoning characterizes the quality of legal advice the President receives which has now culminated with the President convincing himself that the CCJ judgement, in relation Article 161(2), has conferred upon him, a power and right to submit names to the Leader of the Opposition, which the Leader of the Opposition must include in the final list of six names to be submitted to the President for the appointment of a Chairman of Gecom.
In other words, the President is insisting upon submitting names to himself for appointment by him. The very thing he did in respect of the appointment of Justice Patterson, which the CCJ ruled was flawed and in contravention of Article 161 (2) of the Constitution.
It is becoming extraordinarily difficult to refrain from questioning the sense of these people.
Yours faithfully,
Anil Nandlall
