Georgetown: The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will next Wednesday, July 8 deliver its judgment on the appeal brought by the Peoples Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) challenging the ruling handed down by Guyana’s Court of Appeal on jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution.
Lawyers for the PPP and a supporter of A Partnership for National Unity+Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) on Wednesday laid out their arguments on whether the CCJ has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a Guyana Court of Appeal decision on the question of valid votes.
The CCJ will deliver its judgment on July 8 at 3 PM.
Trinidadian Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes laying out his reasons why the Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction in interpreting the Article 177 (2) of the Constitution to say “more votes are cast” should mean “more ‘valid’ votes are cast”.
Mendes, who is representing PPP/C’s Bharrat Jagdeo and Irfaan Ali, cited Eslyn David’s submissions which the Appeal Court had ruled on, pointing out that they failed to reach the threshold for jurisdiction under Article 177(4) of the Constitution.
His argument is that if the Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction, then the finality clause does not apply to the case.
He stressed that Article 177(4) was applicable only to someone who had already been elected president.
Mendes, at the same time, said the CCJ has a legitimate right to interpret the constitution and to find that the Guyana Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction.
“If the decision is not caught by Article 177(4), therefore, your jurisdiction is not excluded,” he said. The lawyer the CCJ Act gives the right to interpret the Constitution, all civil matters and matters of great public importance. He said the CCJ does not interpret the constitution “you would be violating the Constitution of Guyana.”
Mendes also wants the CCJ to issue a consequential order requiring the Chief Elections Officer to withdraw his report to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and declare the result on the basis of the recount.
Attorney-at-Law Reginald Armour, for APNU+AFC’s Joseph Harmon, also argued that the CCJ did not have jurisdiction.
Further, Attorney-at-Law, John Jeremie, for APNU+AFC respondent Eslyn David maintained that the regional court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Guyana constitution and the CCJ Act prohibit this.
Jeremie further argued that even if the Guyana Court of Appeal is wrong, the CCJ could not hear an appeal. “The court has no jurisdiction to determine the matter…to determine whether that supreme court was wrong,” he said.
Queen’s Counsel, Justin Simon,in association with Attorney General, Senior Counsel Basil Williams, said based on the CCJ’s interpretation of Article 177(4) of Guyana’s constitution would have determine whether it has a residual jurisdiction. At the same time, he said the Guyana Court of Appeal enjoys jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution. “Give a liberal interpretation…,”
Attorney General Williams said the Guyana Court of Appeal has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with matters concerning the election of the President and the High Court deals with the election of members of the National Assembly.
You must be logged in to post a comment.