…says any seizure of jurisdiction by CCJ would be dangerous
ANY decision by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to hear an appeal to the decision of the Court of Appeal, which was made under Article 177 (4) of the Constitution, would be tantamount to an attempted coup, Political Scientist, Dr. David Hinds said on Monday.
The CCJ, on Wednesday, is expected to rule on a case brought by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic’s (PPP/C’s) General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo and Presidential Candidate, Irfaan Ali, challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision that the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b) should be interpreted to mean “more valid votes are cast” with respect to the election of a President. The PPP/C’s application for special leave to appeal was filed before the CCJ, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution states that any decision made by the Court of Appeal under Article 177 (4) is final. The CCJ, on Wednesday, will first have to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, before proceeding any further.
Weighing in on the issue which has since sparked picketing actions across the country with A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) supporters calling for Guyana’s Constitution to be respected, Dr. Hinds said both the Constitution and the Caribbean Court of Justice Act have ousted the jurisdiction of the CCJ.
“The barriers to the CCJ’s legal intervention are expressed in both the Guyana Constitution and the CCJ Act. There is no ambiguity in that regard. Since the CCJ is barred from legally intervening, any intervention would be political,” Dr. Hinds said in a statement.
All lawyers in the case have agreed that the CCJ has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal to a decision made by the Court of Appeal under Article 177 (4), since that Article, in unambiguous language, not only granted the Court of Appeal exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of the elections but it indicates that any decision made thereunder is final. While PPP/C’s lead attorney, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes has acceded to this fact, he has argued that the Court of Appeal did not make a decision under Article 177 (4) because it had no jurisdiction to do so. His position, however, is contrary to the position taken by some of the other leading attorneys in the Region including Antiguan and Barbudan Queen’s Counsel, Justin Simon; Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel, Reginald Armour and John Jeremie; and Guyana’s Attorney General Basil Williams.
On the basis that the Constitution is pellucid on the issue of jurisdiction, Dr. Hinds believes that should the CCJ act contrary to the Constitution – the supreme law of the land, such would amount to a political act.
“Any claim of jurisdiction by the CCJ would be a political act with clear political intentions. It would be a clear attempt to install a party in power against the wishes of half the population and in defiance of constitutional checks. Such action is nothing short of a political coup,” the Political Scientist said.
In support of his position, he pointed to the oral submissions of Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran, who pleaded with the CCJ to take political action to bring an end to the electoral impasse which has stretched for well over four months. But, Dr. Hinds, said the CCJ has no such power under the Constitution of Guyana.
“Should the court seize jurisdiction it would set in train regional and domestic consequences that would further rip apart Guyana’s fragile national compact and CARICOM’s equally shaky relationship with the CCJ,” he said.
The Political Scientist added: “There is already a groundswell of anti-CCJ sentiment among a significant section of the Guyanese populace which would not react kindly to the CCJ seizure of jurisdiction and its potential coup.”
The cries of the Guyanese people for the Constitution to be respected should not be disregarded, he said.
“The regional and international forces’ weaponization of the elections’ impasse in favour of one ethno-political contestant and against the other has driven Guyana to the edge. Any attempt by the CCJ to legalize that action would trigger domestic instability that would in turn re-open all Guyana’s historical wounds,” he warned.
Against that background, the Political Scientist further warned that dark days are ahead if the constitutional power of Guyana’s Appeal’s Court is usurped and the legal-constitutional authority of the Chief Elections Officer is over-run.
“Ever so often foreign forces intervene in domestic feuds with scant regard for the consequences for the local community. After four months of back and forth, the electoral saga must be settled by Guyanese who are the best umpires of their situation. The CCJ should steer clear of any overt or covert entanglement, if it is to preserve its expressed autonomy from the domestic politics of member states,” Dr. Hinds said.
Guyana’s General and Regional Elections, held on March 2, 2020, have been bogged down by allegations of fraud coupled with a number of legal proceedings. It first started in March with allegations that the Region Four Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo, had inflated the number of votes cast in favour of the ruling coalition but an attempt by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to ascertain “a final credible count” by way of a National Recount was met with more allegations of fraud – many of which, were detected in PPP/C strongholds. In fact, the recount, which spanned for 33-days, unearthed close to 5,000 cases of voter impersonation and well over 2,000 irregularities, which the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield, has said, have compromised the electoral process. The PPP/C has argued that GECOM has no authority to act on the allegations of fraud detected during the recount.
The Court of Appeal, in handing down its decision on June 22 in a case brought by North Sophia voter Eslyn David, indicated that the country’s President must be elected on the basis of “valid votes” in accordance with Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution, much to the objection of the PPP/C.
Dr Hinds said that at this stage of the electoral process, Guyanese leaders must emerge from their perches and accept where the process has taken them. “The legal and constitutional buck stopped with the Court of Appeal’s binding ruling. GECOM can only respect that ruling and act on it. It is now for the leaders to act. Both parties gambled for four months and the final outcome is clear. The events of March 4 have been overrun by subsequent events. That is just a plain fact. Calls to annul the elections in the interest of mutual peace were rejected and have also been overtaken by subsequent events,” the Political Scientist said.
The CCJ will hand down its decision virtually on Wednesday at 15:00hrs.
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_07_2020