Constitutional actors must function in good faith with honesty, decency, and integrity

Dear Editor,
While there is a lull in court proceedings of electoral nature and I am safe from contempt charges; I would like to examine the impact the Granger presidency has had on the Judiciary. After seemingly endless months to decide simple issues, our apex court, the Caribbean Court of Justice, offered neither solutions nor clear orders in the two most important matters adjudicated.

In the appointment of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), the CCJ urged that, as a matter of the greatest public importance, “the President and the Leader of the Opposition should, as soon as possible, embark upon and conclude the process of appointing a new GECOM Chairman”. The CCJ did not even direct the illegally appointed Chair Patterson to demit office; Patterson was allowed to voluntarily submit his resignation. In the absence of clear directives to an obdurate President, there was confusion with Granger even absurdly suggesting that he should be allowed to nominate persons for his consideration. The CCJ failed to grasp what was required of it.

Regarding the consolidated matters concerning the No-Confidence Motion, the CCJ noted: “that there is clear guidance in Article 106 of Guyana’s Constitution on what should happen next”. The Court then went on to read aloud the aforementioned Article; what exactly was the point of six months in court if no clear consequential orders and direction could be delivered? I am yet to receive a sensible answer to this question from any quarter.

In the post-election period, we have seen the political parties parade up and down the court steps and yet again no solutions or clear directives have emerged to accompany the billowing black cloaks and flowery outrage. Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George (CJ) has delivered impressive judgments, tight on theory and law, but of woefully inadequate practical use. Having declared Mr Mingo’s ‘spreadsheet’ process invalid, the CJ ordered a redo, this resulted in a different ‘do’ by Mingo, who simply stood on a high balcony and announced his results much like a town crier of olden times; back to the CJ, it went.

At this point, the CJ, in my opinion, should have physically intervened, and ordered a court-supervised tabulation; instead, Mingo was allowed to move his act to a ‘cow-shed’ and performed a tabulation reminiscent of a bovine auction, figures were called at a rapid rate, fisticuffs were engaged in, large cardboard propped up by an old car battery and draped with a bedsheet added a sense of macabre to the sordid tableau while unruly elements outside threatened all and sundry. The Judiciary had failed the people spectacularly; and yet, the people’s representatives were soon climbing those steps seeking redress of injustice and solutions within days of the fiasco.

While the CJ can hold her head high, the same cannot be said for those who declared 33 was not the majority of 65. Justice Holder’s refusal to allow media in his courtroom or recording or broadcast of proceedings speaks volumes; for despite being given the use of the CJ’s courtroom which is equipped with all modern amenities, Holder reduced access to his courtroom; fewer lawyers; no journalists; Holder denied those facilities to the media and an anxious nation. In the end, Holder’s platform was taken from under his feet by the Full Court.

In other court matters, such as the legality of Winston Felix and Keith Scott serving as technocrat Ministers, Granger has simply ignored the court’s rulings. In the matter of Winston Jordan being found in contempt of court and subject to imprisonment, Granger issued a pardon which was also found to be illegal and yet Jordan walks among us a free man, above the law.

I understand the difficulties Justices are having in finding legal solutions to political problems; I assert that once those matters are accepted for adjudication, the Justice involved must play an active role in the solution or deliver consequential orders detailed in minutiae. The courts must know what the issue in Guyana was; must have known that a Government was using excuses and simple lies; using their public office appointments to conspire to pervert law and logic; courts must never act in vain, for it weakens the entire system.

The English courts have frequently taken matters into their hands to prevent politicians from abusing their power. Court orders must address the issues in dispute and resolve all issues in dispute between the parties conclusively; no matter should go through the courts for clarification and emerge with smaller issues unresolved and loopholes glaringly open.
The ultimate consequence of the Granger presidency on the Judiciary has been a weakening of the public trust and respect for the courts as arbiters of justice; for that, there can be no forgiveness.

Editor, I have little doubt that there will be moves to the court in the post-recount period; I can only ask to what effect? A country can only function when its constitutional actors do so in good faith with honesty, decency, and integrity. Much of the language of the Constitution needs “no gloss” strong judgments, clear and detailed consequential orders and directions coupled with harsh costs and penalties must be used to restore the public’s faith in the Judiciary. I look forward to the redemption of the judicial system shortly.

Respectfully,
Robin Singh