Rain forests are quite justifiably described as ‘the lungs of the earth’. They are essential to plant and animal life, indeed the survival of the planet, because of their ability release oxygen into the atmosphere and trap carbon dioxide through the process of photosynthesis. Our southern neighbour, Brazil, accounts for more than half of the world’s rain forests.
In recent weeks, forest fires have been raging in Brazil with such intensity that worldwide concerns are being expressed about not only their implications for the environment but also the Brazilian government’s apparent indifference and inaction to deal with an environmental disaster of such enormous consequences. There were protests in front of the Brazilian embassies in several major cities in the western world. At the United Nations, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed deep concern at the damage to what he describes ‘a major source of oxygen and biodiversity’. Earlier this month, Norway and Germany suspended funding for projects in Brazil in an attempt to force the authorities to curb deforestation. And at the G7 Summit that commenced last Saturday in France, sharp differences arose over French President Macron’s threat to block the EU-Mercosur trade deal involving Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, because of the Brazilian authorities’ failure to address the situation.
The main cause of these forest fires is a significant increase in deforestation as farmers engage in the illegal clearing of land to make way for cattle-rearing and soy production, a move that is encouraged by the Brazilian authorities. Brazil’s Space Research Center, INPE, recorded 72,843 such fires this year over an area of 7,000 square miles, an increase of 83 percent, compared with last year. Last year alone, the world lost about 30 million acres of tree cover, including 8.9 million acres of primary rainforest, according the University of Maryland. (https://nationalpost.com/news/world/those-amazon-rainforest-fires-heres-whats-really-happening)
On the corruption front, the trial of Sudan’s deposed President Omar al-Bashir commenced last week in Khartoum, Sudan’s capital. Mr. al-Bashir was reportedly found with over US$113 million in cash at his residence after he was removed from office earlier this year. He claimed that he received the money from the Saudi Arabia’s royal family. The International Criminal Court has also charged the deposed President for atrocities during the Darfur conflict, including multiple counts of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. According to Transparency International:
Corruption in Sudan is endemic, and deeply embedded in the norms and expectations of political life. The country has been a fixture in the bottom five countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index for years… Anti-corruption shouldn’t end with convicting a few individuals – it should create a culture of integrity and the mechanisms to support it.
In last week’s article, we had stated that GECOM was to have met last Monday to decide on the forward, following the Chief Justice’s ruling that the house-to-house registration of voters currently under way is not unlawful or unconstitutional. The Chief Justice, however, held that:
The removal of the names of persons who are already on the list of registrants and who were not, or have not been, or are not registered in the current house to house registration exercise with a consequence of non-inclusion in the list of electors, would be unconstitutional, unless they are deceased or disqualified pursuant to Article 159(2) with the safeguards for removal of the names of persons pursuant to the National Registration Act, Chapter 19:08 to be strictly complied with.
The Commissioners had expected to receive a copy of the Chief Justice’s ruling in time for the meeting. However, this was no to be, and as a result, the meeting was rescheduled for last Wednesday. Having received a copy of the ruling, the Commissioners met for three hours but were unable to agree on the way forward in terms of whether to continue with the current house-to-house registration for the purpose of compiling a new electoral list or whether to use the existing list, updated during a period of claims and objections. Last Friday, the Commission met again, and for a second time it failed to reach an agreement. While there has been no official statement from GECOM about the outcome of the meeting, media reports indicate that the main issue relates to the application of the provisions of Article 159 of the Constitution and the National Registration Act on disqualifications of electors.
Another meeting is planned for tomorrow at which the Commissioners are expected to present their proposals.
Appeal against the Chief Justice’s ruling on the validity of the house-to-house registration of voters
The Attorney General has appealed certain aspects of the Chief Justice’s ruling on the validity of the house-to-house registration of voters. One such aspect relates to Section 6 of the National Registration Act (NRA). Section 6(1) provides for the Commission by order from time to time to appoint a date for the registration of persons upon their application therefor. The order is to apply to all persons who have attained such age as specified in the order and are resident in Guyana or have such other connection with Guyana as may be specified in the order. It is important to note that the registration referred to under this section relates to persons who have applied to be registered, and not the current house-to-house registration of voters currently being undertaken. By Section 6(4), house-to-house visits of persons who have applied for registration is required.
The Attorney General argued that the Judge erred when she held that there is no law in Guyana that sets out additional requirements more particularly residency for purposes of Article 159(2) (c ) of the Constitution. That article provides for a person to be qualified to be registered if he/she is of age 18 years and over at the qualifying date and ‘satisfies such other qualifications as may be prescribed by or under any other law’.
The Attorney General further argued the Judge breached the separation of powers doctrine by issuing an order instructing GECOM, an independent constitutional agency, not to remove from the National Register of Registrants (NRR), persons who are presently registered but who are not registered under the house-to-house registration currently being undertaken.
A third argument raised is that the Chief Justice failed to appreciate that pursuant to Article 159 (5) of the Constitution and Sections 6 and 9 of the NRA, GECOM had embarked on compiling a new NRR to replace the current register. Article 159(5) defines “qualifying date” to mean ‘such date as may be appointed by or under an Act of Parliament as the date with reference to which a register of electors shall be compiled or revised’ (emphasis added). Section 6 of the NRA has already been alluded to while Section 9 provides for the establishment of a central register containing the originals of the registration cards of persons registered under the Act or copies thereof as provided for under Section 7(1).
The Attorney General also felt that it was inappropriate for the Chief Justice to rule on the issue of persons being removed from the list since this was not the subject of judicial review sought by Chartered Accountant and attorney-at-law Christopher Ram.
Chief Justice’s ruling on the validity of the Order for house-to-house registration
In last week’s article, we had referred to the judicial review sought by the leader of the newly-formed Liberty and Justice Party, Mr. Lenox Shuman, on the validity of the Order issued by the former GECOM Chairman, Justice (Ret’d) James Patterson, for the conduct of the house-to-house registration of voters. Mr. Shuman’s argument was that since the Caribbean Court of Justice ruled that the process used to appoint Mr. Patterson was flawed and therefore unconstitutional, this effectively renders the Order made under his hand also void.
On Friday last, the Chief Justice held that the Order by Mr. Patterson is neither invalid nor illegal and that all acts performed by the former Chairman were valid by virtue of the de facto doctrine. This doctrine relates to the validity of all acts performed by persons in their official capacities, which although not legal, are carried out in the interest of the public or third parties, and not for their own benefit.
