Dear Editor,
While I do not support admonition of judges, a practice that has gained prominence in the USA (one of the world’s foremost democracies) where the former and possibly the next President, Donald Trump, has been berating judges who are dealing with his cases in New York, Guyanese need to heed the caution expressed in Ms Shamshun Mohamed’s letter “The elections fraud cases will lead to a stain on the judiciary” (Stabroek News, September 19, 2024).
In her letter she states “The mysterious illness of the presiding magistrate in the elections fraud cases has postponed the trial by another forty-five days to October 31. Attrition in tandem with frustration will lead to all kinds of conclusions and a stained mark on the judiciary which has allowed this situation to manifest and fester for four years. The judiciary must take control of its sagging image …”
In my view, an objective analysis will indicate that confidence in the judiciary has been sagging for decades. An entry on the website of the Walter Rodney Foundation reads “Donald Rodney was in the car with Dr. Walter Rodney, and is also a victim of this tragedy. A number of false statements were attributed to Donald Rodney, both at this trial, where he was convicted in 1982, during the Walter Rodney inquest, and in a contested appeal. Donald Rodney carried the burden of his conviction for the past 41 years. The Court of Appeal recently set aside the conviction of Donald Rodney. However, a number of “legal” issues remain that will also be corrected. This announcement clears Donald Rodney from any wrongdoing”.
Under the caption “Appeal Court sets aside Donald Rodney’s conviction, sentencing”
Stabroek News April 14, 2021, reports “The Court of Appeal yesterday set aside the 1982 conviction and sentencing of Donald Rodney for unlawful possession of explosives stemming from the bomb blast that killed his brother, political activist and historian Dr Walter Rodney.” In offering his views on the outcome of the appeal Donald Rodney “pointed out that the case concerned much more than the conviction as his statements in his defence at trial had been removed from the records of the court, which were falsified to reflect an admission of guilt”. The report notes that his lawyer, Sanjeev Datadin “complained to the appellate court of evidence suppression, for which he said the state is responsible, while alleging that the record of appeal was “adjusted/ fixed” against his client. He also took issue with the length of time the appeal had taken to be heard as he noted that this was a breach of his client’s fundamental right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, as provided for in Article 144 of the Constitution”.
In the 2015 general elections the incumbent PPP government was defeated by 4506 votes which is 1.08% of the total votes cast. After GECOM refused a PPP request for a recount, then President, Mr Donald Ramotar, was persuaded by the US Charge d’Affaires to concede defeat and file an election petition. This he did and Mr David Granger was sworn-in as President. However, the election petition was never brought to trial. In a report in the September 8, 2018, issue of INEWS Guyana, the PPP General Secretary, Mr Bharrat Jagdeo, is quoted as saying, “Until now, we can’t get our court case heard which is in itself an indictment of this Judiciary and those who now run the Judiciary.”
Subsequently, in the November 22, 2020 edition of the Guyana Chronicle, under the caption “Is justice delayed, justice denied?” letter writer Jai Lall writes, “There are two election petitions currently engaging the attention of the court from the last general and regional elections, held on March 2, 2020. This matter will come up for trial shortly. One can ponder also on whatever happened to the election petition from 2015 that was never called to trial! There is a lost interest because, any engagement will only be for academic purpose, the timeframe is meaningless and the challenging party is back in power. But the fact remains that it was never given a chance for the court to decide on a decision”.
A more recent case that caused dismay and concern in Guyana, the CARICOM countries and a number of other Commonwealth countries is the Guyana Court of Appeal decision in the case of the No Confidence Vote of December 2018. A report in the Guyana Times March 24, 2019, notes “Attorney and social commentator, Christopher Ram, had petitioned the High Court to have Government resign and President David Granger call elections within 90 days as stipulated by Articles 106 (6) and (7) of the Constitution. Acting Chief Justice, Roxane George, had ruled that Cabinet should have resigned upon the passage of the No-confidence Motion. But the State appealed the decision and with the Appeal Court 2:1 split ruling that the No-confidence Motion was invalid without a 34 majority vote, the orders granted to Ram, though upheld by acting Chancellor Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justice Rishi Persaud on Friday, became irrelevant”.
In response to the overturning of the Acting Chief Justice decision, Mr Ram is quoted as saying “To say that the decision of the Court of Appeal was a surprise would be the understatement of the century. In my view, it was an exercise in judicial law making in clear violation of the court’s power, function and duty to interpret the Constitution”. Subsequently, at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), the Guyana Appeal Court’s decision was overturned with the CCJ ruling
“Thirty-three votes constitute a majority of the 65 member National Assembly” and “the No Confidence Vote was valid.”
If the current cases against GECOM officials cannot be adjudicated within a timely manner, can Guyanese have confidence that the amendments of December 6, 2022, to the Representation of the People Act, which provide for hefty penalties of fines and imprisonment, will be a deterrent in the future in preventing abuse of the electoral system? The judiciary has a critical role in this regard and, as Shamshun Mohamed writes, “The judiciary must take control of its sagging image”.
Yours faithfully,
Harry Hergash
