Chief Justice throws out application for order compelling Cabinet to resign

“This application is not only wholly misconceived, it is vexatious and an absolute abuse of the process of the court,” said Chief Justice Roxane George as she struck out an application mounted by Opposition lawyer, Anil Nandlall.

He had asked the court to grant an order compelling Cabinet, including the President to resign in light of the successful passage of the NoConfidence Motion (NCM) against the government.

During her ruling, the Chief Justice ordered Nandlall to pay substantial cost, $500,000, to Attorney General Basil Williams, who was listed as the Respondent in his application. The premise of Nandlall’s application was that Government continues to violate the Constitution as it refuses to resign despite being defeated by a NoConfidence Motion, which was passed as long ago as December 21, 2018 in the National Assembly.

In fact, Kamal Ramkarran contended that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), which validated the passage of the motion against Government on June 18, erred when it omitted to issue an order compelling the resignation of Cabinet, including the President. He had reasoned that the CCJ in excluding to grant such an order was of the view that the political actors will act in accordance with the Constitution, the supreme law, moreso Article 106 (6) and 106 (7).

The Chief Justice, however, in refusing to grant the order sought by Nandlall, relied on paragraph eight of the CCJ’s judgment on Consequential Orders in the NoConfidence Motion appeals made on July 12.

That paragraph reads: “It is important, however, that the Court makes this point. In mandating that the Government shall remain in office notwithstanding its defeat and the resignation of the President and the Cabinet, Article 106 envisages that the tenure in office of the Cabinet, including the President, after the Government’s defeat, is on a different footing from that which existed prior to the vote of no confidence. Chancellor CummingsEdwards, citing Hogg1, the Canadian constitutional expert, was right to note that:” “…The government continues in office as a caretaker government or an interim government until the next elections ensue and a President is appointed (or reappointed) depending on the results of that election.” The paragraph continues, “By convention, the government is expected to behave during this interim period as a caretaker and so restrain the exercise of its legal authority. It is this caretaker or interim role that explains the three-month deadline, in the first instance that the Article lays down, in principle, for the holding of the fresh elections.”

According to the Chief Justice: “In my view and I so find in [paragraph] 8 of the judgment, the CCJ did make a pronouncement on the resignation of the President and the Cabinet. Given the language used by the CCJ, it is evident that the effect of the NCM was the immediate resignation of the Cabinet, but the court clearly stated that notwithstanding this, the tenure in office of the Cabinet including the President, as well at the government as a whole, “is on a different footing”—is that of being in a caretaker mode consequent on the passage of the said NCM.”

(Kaieteur News)