PORT OF SPAIN – The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice Friday set May 10 to hear the appeal regarding the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Guyana that invalidated a motion of no confidence which Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo had successfully moved in the National Assembly on December 21 last year.
“This matter is urgent and should be treated as such and therefore the timelines set out in the rules should be abridged,” CCJ President Justice Adrian Saunders told a case management conference.
“We have ordered that the matters be consolidated. We have granted special leave to appeal in each of the cases. We have given leave to the Attorney General to file any cross appeal that he wishes to file by Monday April 8th or any other respondent who wishes to file a cross appeal,” the three-member CCJ panel said.
In addition, the CCJ ordered that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) “be joined as a party” and that the notices of appeal be filed by Monday April 1st.
The CCJ, which is Guyana’s highest court, also ordered that the notices of appeal be served “forthwith” on GECOM by the latest April 5 “and similarly the cross appeals, if any, filed by the appellants be served simultaneously “on GECOM.
“We have ordered that the matter, the appeal be heard on the 10th May (and) that written submissions be filed by all parties on the 17th of April, that all parties file replies, if they wish to by the 23rd of April (and) a pre-trial hearing be held on the 24th of April”
Apart from Jagdeo’s appeal, the CCJ will also hear those filed by attorney Christopher Ram against the Attorney General Basil Williams, the Minister of State Joseph Harmon and Jagdeo on the same issue.
The Opposition Leader through his attorneys filed the appeal on Tuesday asking the regional court to throw out last Friday’s ruling l and restore the validity of the no confidence motion against the coalition government.
In the application, Jagdeo wants the CCJ to issue an order setting aside or reversing the ruling by the Court of Appeal, as well as ruling that the December 21 no-confidence motion was validly passed by a majority of all elected members of the National Assembly.
The Opposition Leader also wants the Court to declare that 33 votes constitute a majority within the meaning of the Constitution when it comes to the no-confidence motion and not 34.
The three member Court of Appeal in a split decision, said that the motion had to be passed by 34 of the 65 members of the National Assembly in order to have been valid.
Chancellor of the Judiciary, Yonnette Cummings-Edwards and Justice Dawn Gregory ruled that the threshold required for a no-confidence motion was 34 votes, while Justice Rishi Persaud provided a dissenting ruling.
Attorneys, Kamal Ramkarran and Devindra Kissoon are asking the CCJ on behalf of Ram to agree that the Court of Appeal erred in its ruling that 34 votes were needed to pass the motion, as against the 33 that were obtained in the 65 member National Assembly.
In addition to asking the CCJ to either reverse or set aside the ruling, the attorneys are also asking on behalf of their client that the CCJ, Guyana’s highest court, among other things, validate the December 21st passage of the motion by the National Assembly and to order President David Granger and the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to ensure that elections are held no later than April 29 this year.
Ram contends that the Court of Appeal erred in its ruling that 34 votes were needed to pass the motion, as against the 33 that were obtained in the National Assembly.
The CCJ said during the pre-trial hearing on April 24, it will address issues related to the order and length of oral submissions.
“But I must warn that we are trying to discourage duplication and parties should cooperate with each other so that you don’t have two parties addressing us on the same points and making the same arguments,” Justice Saunders said.
He said one day has been set aside to hear the matter “and we are going to try to hear it that day”.
Justice Saunders said that he was also urging all lawyers to be present at the CCJ building here rather than rely on making an appearance through video conferencing adding “this is a matter of extreme importance and we can’t afford hitches with the telecommunications….’ (CMC)
