Nandall disputes AG’s interpretation of CJ’s ruling

Gecom Chair

Attorney-General (AG) Basil Williams’s pronouncements on Acting Chief Justice Roxane George’s ruling regarding President David Granger’s criteria for selecting a suitable Chairman for the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) were on Saturday disputed by Williams’s predecessor, Anil Nandlall, who accused the current AG of peddling “misinformation”.
Nandlall referred to the AG’s comments in a September 30  Guyana Times article wherein Williams highlighted the discretionary powers that the President has in relation to rejecting Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo’s third list of nominees for GECOM chairmanship.
Nandlall, who served as Attorney General for the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Administration, viewed some of Williams’s attributed statements in the article as attempting to “completely distort several parts” of Chief Justice George’s ruling.

Attorney General Basil Williams

Nandlall explained that while no one has ever questioned the President’s discretion to deem a list unacceptable, the President’s discretion in this instance “must be exercised reasonably and in accordance with relevant principles governing the exercise of discretionary powers”.
The Acting Chief Justice’s written ruling was handed down this week, wherein it was stated that the nominees do not necessarily have to be a judge, former judge or person qualified to be a judge; and further noted that the President must give reasons to justify the unfitness of persons he has rejected. Nandall noted that this was a rejection of the AG’s arguments.
The Chief Justice’s ruling had, however, added that if persons on the list are not found to be acceptable to the President, he can go ahead and appoint a person from the category he has identified; namely judges, former judges, or a person eligible to be appointed a judge.
In response, the PPP has stated that it could appeal the latter decision in future, since that decision could have implications for future appointments.
Responding to the ruling on Thursday, Williams held out that the Head of State can reject the list if he considers one or all the names unacceptable. Assessing these comments on Saturday, Nandlall noted that the statements are not reflective of the Chief Justice’s ruling, and he even found it “contradictory”.
He also claimed that the current Attorney-General, by way of his statements, had created a ‘misleading impression’ that the Chief Justice had upheld his and the President’s interpretation of the Constitution.
“It is unfortunate that the Attorney-General only chose to speak on rejection of the list, rather than acceptance of it. It appears that the only advice he is giving to the President on this matter is about rejection of the list, rather than an objective consideration of the list in accordance with the principles of law articulated by the Chief Justice in her written ruling. Perhaps this is the type of advice which may have led to the rejection of the two previous lists, and is part of an ulterior design for the President to eventually appoint a person of his choice,” Nandlall pointedly stated.
He also reminded that “almost every argument advanced by the Attorney-General” was rejected by the Chief Justice, including a preliminary argument that the applicant, businessman Marcel Gaskin, had no locus standi (standing).
The Opposition Leader has described President David Granger’s interpretation of the lists of nominees as invalid, due to the court ruling. On August 25, he had presented an additional six names to President Granger for his consideration for appointment to the post of GECOM Chairman. Jagdeo’s nominees were Major General retired Joseph (Joe) Singh; Teni Housty; Sanjeev Datadin; Annette Arjune-Martins; Onesi La Fleur and Krishnadatt Persaud.