AG attacks Bar Council over concerns about gov’t operating outside rule of law

Following the Bar Council of the Guyana Bar Association (GBA) declaring that APNU+AFC government is operating outside the rule of law, the Office of the Attorney General (AG) yesterday rejected the assertion and suggested that the body has become “minion” to a political party.

“The Government of Guyana rejects this contention as being false and malicious, as it cannot be supported by the Bar Council’s recourse to the Constitution and/or the decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice [CCJ],” the AG’s office said in a statement yesterday.

On Friday, the Bar Council, in a strongly worded statement, condemned the failure of government to hold elections as required by the Constitution in wake of the passage of a no-confidence against it by the National Assembly.

It said that “by failing to abide by the clear and unambiguous terms of the Constitution, the Government of Guyana has abdicated its responsibility, violated the Constitution, is operating outside of the rule of law and in breach of internationally recognised standards of democracy.”

In its statement, the AG’s Office argued that in respect of the Constitution neither Articles 106(6) or 106(7) provides for the president to fix a date for elections within a three month period and that the CCJ recognised that it was for the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) not the Government to hold elections within the three months provided by article 106 (7) or such longer period approved by a two third majority of Parliament.

Further, the statement stressed that the court rejected the consequential orders sought by Counsel for the Leader of the Opposition, including that, “The President shall by proclamation appoint a date for the holding of elections no later than 18th September, 2019 and that “The Government shall remain in Office and shall hold an election for the members of the National Assembly within three months of 18th June, 2018 i.e. by 18th September, 2019.”

Instead, it noted that the

highest court decided that “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 preempt 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…,” the court said in its ruling.

Reminding that the GBA is expected to be independent and “like Caesar’s Wife – above reproach,” the AG’s office stated that GBA is “not expected to be the “minion” of any political party or grouping, or to mindlessly parrot its utterances.”

“As Head of the Bar of Guyana, The Attorney General exhorts the GBA to be guided by the aphorism, ‘Ours is a higher and perpetual retainer’ for Justice,” the statement concluded.

The Bar Council statement noted that although it did not order elections, the CCJ, in its judgments in the consolidated no-confidence cases, expressed an expectation that relevant constitutional responsibilities would been exercised with integrity, and in keeping with the unambiguous provisions of the Constitution.

The Council added that the responsibilities alluded to were to be exercised bearing in mind that the noconfidence motion which defeated the incumbent government was validly passed on December 21st, 2019. Following this event, the Council says, President David Granger had a constitutional duty, and responsibility to fix a date for elections within a three-month period, or such longer period approved by Parliament, as required by Article 106(7) of the Constitution.

The Council also noted that no extension was sought by government and or obtained before the constitutionally prescribed period expired.