Attorney Anil Nandlall on Wednesday filed a notice of appeal, signaling his intention to appeal the High Court’s decision on his application to compel Cabinet’s resignation.
Nandlall had filed an application asking the court to order, among other things, Cabinet’s resignation.
The State responded by filing a notice of application asking that Nandlall’s application be struck out as an abuse of the process of the court, and an affront to the doctrine of precedent. Last Wednesday, Chief Justice Roxane George granted the orders asked for by the State, and ordered Nandlall to pay $500,000 in costs to the State.
The rationale which informed the Chief Justice’s ruling is that the issue Nandlall’s application had already been considered and determined by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Guyana’s final appeal court, as reflected in that court’s June 18th decision, and the July 12th consequential orders.
In the notice of appeal, which was filed on Wednesday, attorney Kamal Ramkarran, legal counsel for Nandlall, submits that the Chief Justice erred in law by failing to properly, or at all, give a true interpretation to, and apply Article 106 (6) of the Constitution of Guyana, which, he says, mandates the resignation of Cabinet, including the President, upon the defeat of government by a vote of the majority of the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.
Ramkarran also argues that the Chief Justice erred in law by failing to properly, or at all, interpret and apply, and/or misapprehended the rationale of the CCJ in its decision of June 18th in the no-confidence motion appeals, which he posits could not supplant and supersede Article 106(6) of the Constitution.
Ramkarran also contends that the Chief Justice erred in law by failing to properly apply the doctrine of precedent to the issues before her, and by finding that the principle of constitutional supremacy and the provisions of Article 106(6) were subordinate to the doctrine of precedent.
Ramkarran is also asserting that the Chief Justice erred in law by finding that the proceedings before her, aimed at facilitating enforcement of a constitutional principle with implications for the rule of law, was an abuse of process.
Nandlall has pledged to pursue his application all the way to the CCJ if need be.
