Attorney Anil Nandlall has moved for an early and expedited hearing of his appeal of the Chief Justice’s decision to dismiss his application to compel Cabinet’s resignation.
Further to a Notice of Appeal filed on October 23rd, 2019, Nandlall, who suggested that the hearing of the case can be completed in less than three hours, by way of a Notice of Motion to the Court of Appeal on Thursday pointed out that the appeal “raises matters of fundamental constitutional issues central to democracy, good governance, the Rule of Law, and public order”, and suggested that “is it of high public importance that this appeal be heard and determined with every convenient speed.”
He said that the need for an early hearing of the appeal is buttressed by the flagrant continuation of a constitutional breach by the incumbent government, and the fact that “Cabinet continues to unlawfully sit and make decisions in absolute violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution.”
A plethora of grounds were stated in support of Nandlall’s bid to appeal the entirety of the High Court decision.
Chief Justice Roxane George on October 16th struck out an application by Nandlall’s for orders to compel Cabinet to resign as an abuse of the process of the court, and an affront to the doctrine of precedent. Justice George also ordered Nandlall to pay $500,000 in costs to the State. The judge held that the primary issue in Nandlall’s application had already been considered and determined by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Guyana’s final court, as was reflected in the CCJ’s June 18th decision, and July 12th consequential orders.
In the Notice of Appeal, Kamal Ramkarran, legal counsel for Nandlall, has submitted 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 is also arguing 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 June 18th, which, he posits, could not supplant and supersede Article 106(6) of the Constitution.
Ramkarran has also argued 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 the case all the way to the CCJ for resolution if the need arises.
