“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt”

Dear Editor,
Abraham Lincoln, who served as the 16th President of the Unites States, must have had Basil Williams in mind when he wrote, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt”.
Last Wednesday, Guyana’s infamous Attorney General was sitting in the “Hot Seat” of Stan Gouveia’s radio programme responding to questions relating to the CCJ’s ruling of the No-Confidence Motion and Granger’s reluctance to name a date for elections.
As the programme started, I sat in total disbelief and shame at how natural it is for the main legal advisor to the Government to deliberately misinform and shamelessly lie to the nation. If Basil Williams had any sense of decency, he would have taken Abe Lincoln’s advice and decline the invitation to appear on this popular radio programme.
During the interview, Stan Gouveia reminded the AG that Government fell to a vote of no-confidence since December 21 of last year, and therefore, Government needs to call elections now because going forward, everything Government does would be illegal. “What is your take on that?” he asked.
BASIL’S LIE: “Well, it is not my take, it is the take of the ruling of the CCJ. And the CCJ ruling is very clear. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition and the other Members of the Opposition who appealed to the CCJ, sought coercive orders from the CCJ against the President, against GECOM and other constitutional actors… Well let me say from the outset, the CCJ refused all of the coercive orders that the Leader of the Opposition sought. And those orders included that the President and Cabinet should resign.
That was rejected by the CCJ; the other one was that elections be held within three months… That was also rejected by the CCJ. Thirdly that the President remain and be directed to hold election no later than the 18th of September, that too was rejected by the CCJ and the question of which or what list that GECOM should be directed to use was also rejected by the CCJ. Other rejections included in relations to the GECOM’s Chair appointment, they sought a coercive order that the President and Leader of the Opposition conclude their negotiations, and the President will take no more than three days after receipt of the list from the Leader of the Opposition to name a Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).
So, all of these orders they sought, and all of these orders were refused by the CCJ. (But) Why did they refuse those orders? They (the CCJ) said clearly that they would not be presumptuous to make coercive orders or give detailed directives to these constitutional actors which include the President and GECOM. And in relation to GECOM, that they would not give deadline and timeline to GECOM in relation to the holding of elections. What they (CCJ) indicated is that all of these constitutional actors know their responsibilities under the Constitution, and they ought to discharge of this responsibility with integrity. I think it is a clear victory for our Constitution; a clear victory for the Doctrine of Separation of Powers…”
THE FACTS: The Attorney General deceptively omitted the parts of the judgements which say emphatically, that those orders were not granted because the Constitution itself, specifically and adequately, provides for what must happen when a No-Confidence Motion is passed in the National Assembly, that is to say, Cabinet, including the President, must resign, elections must be held within three months and within that three-month period, the Government remains in office as a “caretaker” until the next President is sworn-in.
It is clear, that Basil Williams wishes to portray that because the specific orders prayed for were refused, then the judgements of the CCJ can be ignored by the Government.
So by analogy, if a wife goes to the court and complains that her husband consistently beats her and she prays for an order restraining the husband from beating her, and the Magistrate refuses to grant such an order on the grounds that the laws of the land already prohibit the husband from beating her since assault, actual bodily harm and wounding etc are all criminal offences; then because the order was refused, the husband can continue to beat his wife.
There is no other way of describing such line of reasoning, other than to say that it is an expression of unparalleled “dunceness”. (Anil Nandlall)
Basil Williams was next asked why was Granger inserting or suggesting names for inclusion in the final list of six that the Leader of the Opposition would be submitting the President for him to select the Chairman of GECOM?
BASIL’S LIE: “Well that’s the usual approach of the Leader of the Opposition. Look, the ruling of the CCJ is very clear. You recall the old process was, the Leader of the Opposition presents a list to the President of six names that are not unacceptable to the President. That was the old process. And the President and the Leader of the Opposition followed that process, and the CCJ said that that process was flawed. And in fact, it was Nandlall who started that argument that it was a unilateral appointment, and that the whole philosophy was to move away from unilateralism to consensualism. They (the PPP) started that argument.
And so, the Court found, after tracing the history of the legislation and applying a method of interpretation, they (the CCJ) found that that process was flawed. So, the process was not one of the unilateral appointments of Justice Patterson after three lists… (inaudible, break in transmission) which are not unacceptable to the President and also would satisfy the illegibility requirements in the Constitution. That is the new process.
Before the list is presented, the President and Jagdeo must now talk about the list. And the Court went further to say this approach gives the President now, a role in identifying names to go on the list. So, no longer unilateralism with Jagdeo alone determines the composition of the list, now the President is part of that process”.
THE FACTS: This type of reasoning characterises the quality of legal advice the President receives which has now culminated with the President convincing himself that the CCJ judgement, in relation Article 161(2), has conferred upon him a power and right to submit names to the Leader of the Opposition, which the Leader of the Opposition must include in the final list of six names to be submitted to the President for the appointment of a Chairman of GECOM.
In other words, the President is insisting upon submitting names to himself for appointment by him. The very thing he did in respect of the appointment of Justice Patterson, which the CCJ ruled was flawed and in contravention of Article 161 (2) of the Constitution. It is becoming extraordinarily difficult to refrain from questioning the mental make-up of these people. (Anil Nandlall)
During the interview, Basil Williams said the CCJ made the decision that the Cabinet, including the President will remain in office. Again, he lied. At all times, the CCJ made reference to the Constitution of Guyana, and instructs that “All must be faithful to the spirit and letter of the Constitution and operate within the parameters given to each by the Constitution… these particular provisions (Article 106(6) and (7)) require no gloss on the part of the Court in order to render them intelligible and workable. Their meaning is clear and it is the responsibility of constitutional actors in Guyana to honour them”.
Like David Granger, Basil Williams poses a dangerous threat to our democracy and our Constitution by misrepresenting the rulings of the CCJ to stay in power by all means necessary. So for convenience and clarity, I now quote sections of the consequential orders made by the CCJ on July 12, 2019. Readers can form their own opinion.

Consequential orders in part:
[5] The Judiciary interprets the Constitution. But, as we intimated in our earlier judgement, these particular provisions require no gloss on the part of the Court in order to render them intelligible and workable. Their meaning is clear and it is the responsibility of constitutional actors in Guyana to honour them. 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 such resignation, 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 …’ The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has the responsibility to conduct that election and GECOM too must abide by the provisions of the Constitution.
[6] Given the passage of the No-Confidence Motion on 21 December 2018, a general election should have been held in Guyana by 21 March 2019 unless a two thirds majority in the National Assembly had resolved to extend that period. The National Assembly is yet to extend the period. The filing of the court proceedings in January challenging the validity of the no confidence vote effectively placed matters on pause, but this Court rendered its decision on 18 June 2019. There is no appeal from that judgement.
[7] Article 106 of the Constitution invests in the President and the National Assembly (and implicitly in GECOM), responsibilities that impact on the precise timing of the elections which must be held. It would not therefore be right for the Court, by the issuance of coercive orders or detailed directives, to presume to instruct these bodies on how they must act and thereby pre-empt the performance by them of their constitutional responsibilities.
It is not, for example, the role of the Court to establish a date on or by which the elections must be held, or to lay down timelines and deadlines that, in principle, are the preserve of political actors guided by constitutional imperatives. The Court must assume that these bodies and personages will exercise their responsibilities with integrity and in keeping with the unambiguous provisions of the Constitution bearing in mind that the No-Confidence Motion was validly passed as long ago as 21 December 2018.

I rest my case.
Harry Gill,
PPP/C Member of
Parliament