The challenge mounted for the disclosure of Irfaan Ali’s academic credentials ahead of his becoming president is still pending although counsel for the applicants has said that they are not likely to proceed.
On February 28th, Justice Franklyn Holder had deferred a ruling on an application made by then Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo to strike out the lawsuit calling on him to disclose the academic credentials of the then PPP/C presidential candidate, Ali.
Two Sundays ago, Ali was sworn in as President and Jagdeo his Vice President following the official declaration by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) that the PPP/C had won the March 2nd polls.
In January, private citizens Dianna Deravinee Rajcumar and Phillip Marcus had moved to the High Court over lingering questions about Ali’s academic bona fides, arguing that they were entitled to know the qualifications of the presidential hopeful as with any other, before deciding to vote for a particular candidate.
Against this background, they called on Jagdeo to make a full disclosure.
On February 28th, Justice Holder was supposed to rule on Jagdeo’s application to strike out the lawsuit calling on him to disclose.
That was the last time the matter was called.
Following that day’s hearing, now-Attorney General Anil Nandlall, who represented Jagdeo, said that hearings had not yet concluded on the application and as a result the court did not rule.
The matter had then been adjourned until March 19th but was not called. It is unclear why.
Submissions from both sides had, however, been laid over to the court as requested.
Stabroek News understands that no return date had been set, but that when it does come up, it is likely to be for clarifications or amplifications in the event there are additions to be made by either party.
Contacted yesterday, however, attorney Stephen Lewis, who represents the applicants, said it is not likely that his clients would proceed since it was a pre-elections matter and events would have since been overtaken by time.
He said that the questions they wanted answered were to inform them for the polls.
Nandlall’s argument has been that the action is bad in law, frivolous and should never have been filed.
He had said that academic qualifications are not a requirement for being a presidential candidate even as he chided Rajcumar and Marcus for filing their action that close to elections while noting that Ali had been “chosen” to be the presidential candidate for the PPP/C since January of 2019.
Asked how relevant the case would have been after elections, Nandlall had said that it would obviously have no relevance, save for academic importance as a guide for what should be required for future elections.
For the March polls, however, he had said that it would have “no practical or pragmatic value anymore,” arguing that the proceedings have no cause of action and constitute an abuse of the process of the court.
His position has been that while eligibility of a presidential candidate “may be” a question for the court, suitability, he said, is a question for the electorate while advancing that the suit filed does not question Ali’s eligibility.
In their fixed-date application, Rajcumar and Marcus want the court to order the disclosure of Ali’s certificates.
After selection by his party to be presidential candidate and leading up to the elections Ali had been dogged by questions about the validity of his academic qualifications.
