Dates have been set in the case where former Attorney General Anil Nandlall is seeking to compel Cabinet’s resignation.
Both sides have been asked to file submissions by September 23 2019, after which the matter will come up for hearing again on 30 September 2019 at 1.30 pm
The dates were set by Chief Justice Roxane George during case management yesterday.
On 26 August 2019, counsel for Nandlall filed an action in which the court is being asked to order Cabinet to resign, or, alternatively, to give effect to its resignation in the event that said resignation occurred automatically as a consequence of the successful passage of the no-confidence motion against the government on 21 December 2019.
The alternative order sought mirrors statements made by Chief Justice George in her judgment in Christopher Ram v. Attorney General and Another, handed down in January of this year. At page 19 of that judgment, Chief Justice George said that Cabinet’s resignation, as required by Article 106(6) of the Constitution, takes immediate effect upon a successful no-confidence motion, thereby requiring no further action by this class of persons.
At page 15, she clarified that “the resignation of Cabinet does not result in the dissolution of Parliament”, but that “Both the President and the National Assembly … are clearly still in existence following the resignation of Cabinet.”
When the matter engaged the attention of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), President of the Court, Justice Adrian Saunders, while declining to make orders to that effect, said that the effect of Article 106(6), that is, that the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence, is clear, and should be abided by.
Nandlall is also seeking a Conservatory Order to restrain Cabinet from meeting, making decisions as, or performing the functions or Cabinet.
On 5 September 2019, the State filed a Notice of Application to strike out Nandlall’s Fixed Date Application (FDA) on the basis that it was an abuse of process, moot, and an affront to the doctrine of stare decisis (meaning let the decision stand), or rule of precedent, given that the issue was litigated before the CCJ, which refused to make the orders Nandlall is now seeking.
The Notice of Application states that the CCJ, in its judgment in the ‘No Confidence Motion Cases’ indicated that “notwithstanding its defeat, and the resignation of the President and Cabinet, Article 106 envisages that the tenure in office of the Cabinet, including the President, after the Government’s defeat, is on a different footing from that which existed prior to the vote of no confidence.”
Ironically, these very words, on which the State seeks to rely to argue that Cabinet’s nor the President’s resignation was required in the absence of coercive orders to that effect, includes the words “notwithstanding its defeat, and the resignation of the President and Cabinet”. By letter dated 5 August 2019, President David Granger indicated to Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo that Cabinet would not be resigning.
During case management yesterday, Kamal Ramkarran, counsel for Nandlall, noted that the issue raised in the State’s Notice of Application is one of law, and best determined by legal arguments. Williams sought to raise the argument in the State’s Notice of Application, that is, that the FDA was an abuse of process, and should not be entertained by the court.
However, Chief Justice George agreed that the issue was a legal one on which both parties had contending views, and therefore should be resolved on arguments. The court will begin to consider the arguments when it next hears the matter on 30 September 2019.
Speaking to Stabroek News on Friday, Nandlall said that his application was not an abuse of process. Instead, he argues, he is seeking to compel compliance with the Constitution, and the essence of the CCJ’s judgment.
