Chair’s authorisation not needed for CJ’s recusal petition – lawyer claims

Undermining of new GECOM Chair

In an attempt to justify himself being retained— apparently with approval from Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield and not by the newly appointed Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) — Trinidad-based Senior Counsel Stanley Marcus has noted that the CEO was within his rights to act without the approval of a GECOM Chairperson.
This is despite the fact that on Monday, new Chairperson for GECOM Retired Justice Claudette Singh was sworn into office. She did not even convene a meeting of the Commission or have a say in Lowenfield’s approval of Marcus’ appointment. This action has raised questions over whether the CEO overstepped his authority.
“The effect of what is being said is that GECOM must not be represented in this matter, even though they are asking for relief against GECOM,” Marcus said when asked on Tuesday about his employment following the hearing of his application on Lowenfield’s behalf asking Chief Justice Roxanne George to recuse herself from hearing the challenge to House-to-House Registration.
“GECOM must have a say, regardless of whether they have a chairman or not,” Marcus maintained. “But when they sued, GECOM didn’t have a chairman. So you can sue when GECOM doesn’t have a chairman, but GECOM must not defend the action that you brought?”
Marcus, who last appeared on GECOM’s behalf unsuccessfully arguing his case before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), contended in his application that Justice George may be biased against them by virtue of a recent press statement.
After she declined to grant an order on July 23 restraining GECOM’s House-to-House exercise and gave parties time to make further submissions, Justice George, via the Supreme Court’s publicity unit, was forced to make a statement correcting misconceptions with her decision.
One such misconception she corrected in her statement was claims made by Attorney General Basil Williams and carried in sections of the press that applicant Christopher Ram withdrew his challenge.
But since she referenced September 18 as the date in the statement the CCJ had intended elections should be held, Marcus argues in his application that this constitutes a bias against them. When asked about the merits of his application, the Senior Counsel maintained that they had grounds to seek the CJ’s recusal.
“The CCJ said that the Courts will not interfere. The Courts will leave it to the functionaries: President, GECOM and the National Assembly to resolve that issue. The Court made no pronouncement regarding a date. So nobody has a basis for saying the CCJ said that. And that’s what the press release said”.

What the CCJ said
Article 106 (6) of the Constitution states: “The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence”.
Meanwhile, Article 106 (7) states: “Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine, and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the election”.
A No-Confidence Motion was passed against the Government on December 21 last year. However, elections were not held and there was no resignation. Instead, Government went to court unsuccessfully arguing that the No-Confidence Motion was not validly passed.
The case reached the CCJ, where the regional Court ruled against the Government, but stopped short of issuing an order fixing an election date. Instead, CCJ President Justice Adrian Saunders had said that when the No-Confidence Motion was passed on December 21, 2019, Article 106 of the Constitution had immediately been activated.
According to Justice Saunders, when he read the ruling, there was no need for the Court to gloss over the provisions of Article 106 (6 and 7), but it is in fact the responsibility of the constitutional actors to be faithful to the rule of law and operate within parameters of the Constitution.
“Upon the passage of a vote of no-confidence, the Article requires the resignation of the Cabinet including the President. The Article goes on to state, among other things, that notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and that an election shall be held within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine,” Saunders had said.
Further, the CCJ President had noted that with GECOM also responsible for the conduct of those elections, it therefore means that the elections body “too must abide by the provisions of the Constitution.
He went on to point out that elections should have been held on March 21, 2019, following the December passage of the Opposition-sponsored motion, but that the process was on “pause” pending the legal proceedings.
That process, Saunders had clearly said, was no longer on pause following the Court’s June 18, 2019 ruling, which upheld the validity of the No-Confidence Motion and, thus, triggering the need for fresh elections. In keeping with the constitutional three months provision, this means General and Regional Elections should be held on or before September 18, 2019.