Govt worried over “alarming rate” of reversal of Court of Appeal decisions by CCJ

Nov 07, 2024 News

---

Kaieteur news- Attorney General Anil Nandlall on Tuesday evening on an episode of his weekly show “Issues in the News” told his listeners that the rate, at which the Caribbean Court of Justice is overturning the decisions being made by the courts in Guyana, is worrying.

The AG said that, “What is worrying is the alarming rate of reversal which is taking place at the level of the Court of Appeal of Guyana and the Caribbean Court of Justice. I have spoken about this several times and it must be a cause for worry.”

He explained that he has repeatedly pointed out that in certain types of cases there have been 100% reversal, “the Court of Appeal rules one way, the CCJ overrules it in a particular category of cases am din other cases the rate of reversal is not much different. This is a worrying issue and as minister with the responsibility for justice it is my duty to voice these concerns.”

The AG’s comments come after the recent CCJ ruling to overturn the decision in the case of parliamentary secretaries Vikash Ramkissoon and Sarah Brown. “The Caribbean Court of Justice gave a very important ruling in the case filed by Christopher Jones in which he sought to prohibit two parliamentary secretaries, Vikash Ramkissoon and Sarah Brown from participating in sitting in the National Assembly, and he succeeded in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal,” the AG said.

It was reported by this publication on October 31^st that the CCJ ruled that the appointment of two PPP candidates as Parliamentary Secretaries in the National Assembly is lawful, striking down two contrary decisions in the lower courts in Guyana.

The CCJ’s decision followed the rulings of the Court of Appeal to uphold the High Court’s judgment that the appointments were invalid. The matter was heard by the CCJ President, Justice Adrian Saunders, and Justices Winston Anderson, Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Andrew Burgess, and Peter Jamadar. Attorney General, Mohabir Anil Nandlall SC, Douglas Mendes SC, Nigel Hawke, Solicitor General, Clay Hackett, and Shoshanna Lall, Deputy Solicitor General appeared for the Appellants Ms. Brown and Mr. Ramkissoon.

Attorneys, Roysdale Forde SC, Selwyn A Pieters, Dexter Todd, Darren Wade, and Sasha King appeared for respondent, Opposition Member of Parliament, Christopher Jones. Attorneys, C. V. Satram, Mahendra Satram, Manoj Narayan, Ron Motilall, and Chandanie Dyal appeared for the second Respondent the Speaker of the National Assembly.

According to the facts of the case, the two secretaries were both named on the list of candidates presented by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (‘the PPP/C’) for general and regional elections held on 2nd March 2020.

The PPP/C was declared the winner of those elections.  They were allocated 33 of the 65 seats in the National Assembly. Ms. Browne and Mr. Ramkissoon were listed among the candidates put up by the PPP/C. Neither, however, was among the 33 names extracted from the list put forward by the PPP/C to hold seats in the Assembly. Following the elections, the President appointed both Ms. Browne and Mr. Ramkissoon as Parliamentary Secretaries by an instrument dated 14th September 2020. The President’s appointments were made in keeping with article 186 of the Constitution.

However, Jones, an Opposition Member of Parliament was dissatisfied with the two presidential appointments. He filed a Fixed Date Application dated 22nd December 2020, seeking declarations that Ms. Browne and Mr. Ramkissoon were not lawful members of the Assembly nor were they lawfully appointed Parliamentary Secretaries. The High Court granted the declaration that the two appointees were not lawful members of the National Assembly.

The High Court considered itself bound by the decision of the trial judge in Attorney General of Guyana v Morian.  The reasoning of the trial judge in Morian was influenced by that which was set out in the earlier High Court decision of Trotman v Attorney General. The Court of Appeal’s dismissals of the decisions in Morian and Trotman respectively were each based on procedural issues rather than the substantive issues adjudicated by the High Court. Notwithstanding, the Court of Appeal in this case also considered itself bound by these two decisions and noted that it was for the CCJ “to correct any errors in Morian”.

The CCJ, therefore, considered two main issues; whether the Court of Appeal was bound by the decision of Morian and, and whether the appointments of Messrs Browne and Ramkissoon were lawful. In the lead judgment, CCJ President, Justice Adrian Saunders, with whom the Justices Anderson, Rajnauth-Lee, Burgess, and Jamadar agreed addressed the first issue noting that the principle of stare decisis promotes consistency and predictability in the law. Therefore, if a Court of Appeal dismisses an appeal, especially on constitutional interpretation, on purely procedural grounds, making no assessment whatsoever of the correctness of the trial judge’s reasons for the particular interpretation, a future appellate Court should be very hesitant to consider itself bound essentially by the reasoning of that trial judge.

(Govt worried over “alarming rate” of reversal of Court of Appeal decisions by CCJ)

---

• AG, CCJ, Courts, rate, worrying

---