Skip to main content

Source

Dear Editor,

Several news publications have reported President David Granger as saying that notwithstanding the decision of the court regarding the interpretation of Article 161 (2) of the Constitution, he intends to act in accordance with his own perception of the meaning of the text.

Ideally, I would have preferred to have the benefit of the court’s written decision, and an official statement from the President on the judgement to inform this contribution. However, as neither seem available at the moment, I will proceed on the strength of what has been reported.

Now, providing that such a position was indeed taken by the President, it constitutes an affront to the principle of constitutionalism, which advances the view that a government’s powers are subject to the constitution. Essential to the principle of constitutionalism is the doctrine of judicial supremacy, that is, the exclusive right of superior courts of record to authoritatively interpret and apply the constitution and statutes. It is for this reason that courts are often described as the guardians, or protectors of the constitution.

This principle was elucidated by the United States Supreme Court as early as 1803 in the landmark case Marbury v Madison (1803) 1 Cranch 137. Delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Marshall remarked, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.”

The role of courts in interpreting constitutions was also stated in the case of Shatrughan Chauhan and Another v Union of India and Others; and other writ petitions (2014) 4 LRC 124, where the Indian Supreme Court said: “There is no question of remanding the matter for consideration because this court is the custodian and enforcer of fundamental rights and the final interpreter of the Constitution.”

Both decisions reflect the generally held position of courts across several jurisdictions, and thus constitute persuasive authority. I am yet to encounter any determinations which suggest that the interpretation of a constitutional provision by an executive president in a democracy is superior to a judicial interpretation.

There is no written constitution to interpret in the United Kingdom, but it is trite law that it is the court which possesses exclusive authority to interpret and apply statute. Various rules and canons of interpretation have been developed over the centuries to assist the court in this exercise. How familiar is the President with these rules and canons? Indeed, the President has the benefit of the advice of the Attorney General, but even this officer’s interpretation is not superior to that of the court.

So then, if our superior courts authoritatively interpret the constitution, saying what it means, and Article 8 of the Constitution provides that “This constitution is the supreme law of Guyana…” one may reasonably argue that the meaning of the Constitution, as given by the court, is supreme, being superior to all other proffered meanings, and subject only to the determinations of more senior courts in Guyana’s judicial hierarchical structure.

The effect is that the President’s interpretation of Article 162 (2) of the Constitution is, in law, of no legal effect where it differs from the judicial determination of a superior court of record. Furthermore, unless his own view is vindicated on appeal from the current determination, the President is duty bound to defer to the judicial determination.

There is a very important rationale behind the court’s authoritative role as interpreter of the Constitution. Consider a scenario where every entity or person empowered by the Constitution to exercise power is allowed to conclude for themselves the meaning of constitutional provisions which define the nature and scope of their powers. Imagine if the President is allowed to, ignoring previous and later judicial determinations, determine, in all cases, the limitations, or lack thereof, on his own discretion and even immunities.

Also, consider the ramifications of citizens demanding the civil, political and economic, social and cultural rights provided for in our Constitution in accordance with their own interpretations, as opposed to deferring to judicial guidance. What if citizens interpreted the guiding principles of our Constitution as binding upon the state, as opposed to viewing them as non-justiciable, as decided by our courts? Article 27 (1) in particular, which speaks to the “right to free education from nursery to university as well as non-formal places where opportunities are provided for education and training”, would be especially problematic.

The role of the courts in Guyana is similar to that of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) with respect to the interpretation and application of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC). If each state party to the RTC is allowed to interpret and apply the RTC’s provisions for themselves, it is likely that we would have as many interpretations as we do states. Indeed, in the few cases which have engaged the CCJ’s original jurisdiction, various states have proffered their own interpretations of RTC provisions, none of which are valid unless they align with the interpretation adopted by the CCJ.

To ensure a much needed, uniform interpretation and application of the RTC within the Caribbean Single Market and Economy, there must be a single, authoritative interpreting entity. The CCJ, in its original jurisdiction, serves this role.

To ensure a uniform interpretation and application of Guyana’s Constitution and statutes, there must be a single, authoritative interpreting entity. Our courts of superior record, including the CCJ in its appellate jurisdiction, serve this role.

Yours faithfully,

Chevy Devonish

Replies sorted oldest to newest

A president’s interpretation of a constitutional provision is not superior to a judicial interpretation

Source

Dear Editor,

So then, if our superior courts authoritatively interpret the constitution, saying what it means, and Article 8 of the Constitution provides that “This constitution is the supreme law of Guyana…” one may reasonably argue that the meaning of the Constitution, as given by the court, is supreme, being superior to all other proffered meanings, and subject only to the determinations of more senior courts in Guyana’s judicial hierarchical structure.

The effect is that the President’s interpretation of Article 162 (2) of the Constitution is, in law, of no legal effect where it differs from the judicial determination of a superior court of record. Furthermore, unless his own view is vindicated on appeal from the current determination, the President is duty bound to defer to the judicial determination.

Yours faithfully,

Chevy Devonish

PNC pursuing Forbes Burnham's approach whereby power is/was ...

1. PNC party

2. PNC government

3. Constitution.

FM

And the stinking Namakaram Crabdaag, ass kisser is ONLY concern with his personal wealth and Power. Dat is the real, certified AS KISSER and NAMAKARAM CRABDAAG!!  I challenge anyone, anywhere, anytime to defend him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nehru

Bar council says confident that state will abide by court order on GECOM question.

  Source

The Bar Council of the Guyana Bar Association today issued a carefully worded riposte to a statement made by President David Granger following the ruling made by Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George on the GECOM matter taken to court by Marcel Gaskin.

A statement from the Bar Council follows:

STATEMENT BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF GUYANA ON COMMENTS MADE BY HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF GUYANA ON 19 JULY 2017

The Bar Council of the Bar Association of Guyana notes the remarks of His Excellency the President of Guyana on 19 July 2017 concerning the judgment of the Chief Justice in Marcel Gaskin’s recently concluded application for declaratory orders.

Mr. Gaskin, in proceedings commenced on 20 March 2017, asked the Court to make certain declaratory orders on the meaning of Article 161(2) of the Constitution, which provides for the appointment of the Chairman of the Elections Commission. Those proceedings came to an end on 17 July 2017 when the Chief Justice made declaratory orders.

At the swearing-in ceremony of Judges on 19 July 2017, His Excellency said “The Chief Justice gave an appointment based on her perception of the law and I will continue to act based on my perception of the Constitution…”.

In addition, as to providing reasons for rejecting names on a list submitted to him for possible appointment to the post, His Excellency said “If you can show me the article of the Constitution which requires me to give reasons, I will comply with the Constitution but I will not do what the Constitution does not require me to do”.

The Bar Council notes that declaratory orders made by the Chief Justice, based on Her Honour’s application of principles of law, are not interpretations or opinions but, like all other orders of court, are pronouncements of the law made in formal proceedings on a particular legal state of affairs.

The leading legal treatise on this type of order describes the effect of a declaratory order in the following terms:

…whilst the defendant is assumed to have respect for the law, justice does not rely on this alone. A declaration by the court is not a mere opinion devoid of legal effect: the controversy between the parties is determined and is res judicata as a result of the declaration being granted. Hence, if the defendant acts contrary to the declaration, he will not be able to challenge the unlawfulness of his conduct in subsequent proceedings.

The treatise makes it clear that the refusal to abide by a declaratory order may result in an order to enforce the rights established by the declaration.

The Bar Council is confident that, like in every other society which respects and safeguards the rule of law, the State will abide by the declaratory orders made by the Chief Justice.

Django

President hasn’t rejected CJ’s ruling on selection of Gecom chair

-Ministry of the Presidency.

  Source

The Ministry of the Presidency yesterday refuted any assertion that President David Granger has rejected the recent ruling of acting Chief Justice Roxane George SC on the constitutional requirements for the appointment of the Guyana Elections Commission (Gecom) chairperson.

“Any commentary to contrary is clearly a deliberate misinterpretation,” the ministry said in a press statement that was issued last evening, although it did not identify the source of any such assertions.

However, the statement was issued hours after the Bar Council of the Guyana Bar Association noted the president’s recent comments on the judgement and said that it was confident that the state will abide by Chief Justice’s orders, like in every other society which respects and safeguards the rule of law.

Marcel Gaskin, a private citizen, had approached the High Court in March asking the court to provide an interpretation of the Constitution as it relates to the provisions for the selection of a Chairperson of Gecom.

Attorney General Basil Williams SC and Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo were listed as the respondents.

The acting CJ delivered the judgement orally on Monday and said, among other things, that the appointee did not have to be judge, former judge or someone eligible to be a judge and that nominees falling into these categories were not more favoured by the law for appointment than those who were submitted as “fit and proper” candidates.

President Granger, who had been emphasising that the ideal candidate should be a judge or someone eligible to be a judge, subsequently said in reaction to the ruling, “I will continue to act in accordance with my perception of the Constitution; that is to say, I will not appoint somebody who I do not consider fit and proper.”

During the ruling, the Chief Justice also said that the President should state reasons for rejecting any candidate. Later asked if he would give reasons as to why he has rejected the two lists that have been submitted by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, Granger responded, “If you can show me the Article of the Constitution which requires me to give reasons, I will comply with the Constitution but I will not do what the Constitution does not require me to do.”

The Ministry of the Presidency noted that Granger went on to tell media operatives that he remained committed to the spirit of the Constitution. “I do not believe that anything that the Honourable Chief Justice said has diminished my regard for the word or the spirit of the Constitution. I do believe that the person must be independent, must be impartial and I am looking for that independence and that impartiality,” it quoted him as telling the media.

The statement said that there is no indication that the Head of State “dismissed” the Chief Justice’s ruling, nor that he does not observe the separation of powers between the Executive branch of government and the Judiciary.

It further said that the words ‘fit and proper’ are taken directly from Article 161 (2) of the Constitution of Guyana and are an iteration of what the acting Chief Justice is reported to have said in her ruling based on her perception of that Article.

It added that while the President believes that the Constitution was crafted the way it was to give preference to the appointment of a judge or someone who is qualified to be appointed as a judge, he has never disagreed with acting Chief Justice’s ruling in that the Constitution clearly states that ‘any other fit and proper person’ can be appointed. As a result, it asserted that the president’s comments complement and do not contradict the ruling.

The statement noted too that in January, during a recording of ‘The Public Interest,’ the President said that any “fit or proper person” must approximate those qualities that characterise what is expected of a judge.

According to the ministry, any report or suggestion that the President does not observe the separation of powers is “blatantly dishonest and mischievous” and it pointed out that he reiterated the importance of an independent Judiciary at last week’s swearing in of new judges.

“The Executive Branch of Government has no interest in interfering in the adjudicatory role of the judiciary nor will it condone any interference in the work of the judiciary. Threats to the independence of the judiciary must be repelled…,” he was quoted as saying.

The statement stressed that the president remains committed to that separation and “nothing in his word or actions have demonstrated anything otherwise.”

Django

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×