Author: ChrisRam

Posted on

Was Whittaker articulating government policy?

On March 7, 2014, the Stabroek News carried an article in which Mr Norman Whittaker, Minister in the Ministry of Local Government is reported as asserting that the “vast majority of the populace is not prepared for the holding of local government polls by August 1st” and that “to go ahead would result in the waste of a lot of money.”

Even by the standards of inanity now associated with the “vast majority” of the PPP/C and government spokespersons, Mr Whittaker’s statement is outstanding for its disconnect with the Constitution of Guyana and the laws relating to local government elections. But it may be more than simple ignorance: it shows the little or no regard which PPP/C ministers have for democracy and the drift to autocracy which Guyana has suffered since democracy returned to it in 1992 and the last local government elections were held in 1994.

Even if Mr Whittaker had read only up to Article 12 of the constitution he would be aware that “local government by freely elected representatives of the people is an integral part of the democratic organisation of the State.” He would also have some passing familiarity with the fact that Chapter VII in its entirety is devoted to Local Democracy, and that Article 71 pronounces that “Local Government is a vital aspect of democracy and shall be organised so as to involve as many people as possible in the task of managing and developing the communities in which they live.”

I do not for a moment believe that Mr Whittaker is unfamiliar with those articles. What I believe is his real problem – apart from the dread that local government elections will be disastrous for the PPP/C – is Article 75 which allows for local democratic organs to be autonomous. Not surprisingly, a party whose article of faith seems based on George Orwell’s Animal Farm, has successfully delayed local government elections for seventeen years, depriving citizens of their constitutional rights.

The citizens of Guyana expect that those responsible for the holding of local government elections will discharge their constitutional and statutory duties. We have a full-time Elections Commission (GECOM) which between 2007 and 2013 inclusive, but excluding election year 2011 benefited from ten billion, four hundred and seventy six million dollars ($10,476 million).

The Local Authorities (Elections) Act gives the power (and the duty) to fix the date for local government elections to the Minister of Local Government. Mr Whittaker has no discretion as to whether citizens want such elections or not and he should be confronted in the National Assembly with his unbelievable nonsense. Moreover, the President or his Governance Advisor must tell the country whether Mr Whittaker was articulating government policy.

The parliamentary opposition and civil society organisations must now provide the leadership to stop this abuse of citizens’ constitutional rights and do everything that is necessary to ensure that local government elections which were due since 1997 are held no later than August 1, 2014.

Posted on

The Budget cuts case

Introduction
The abrupt resignation earlier this month of Court of Appeal Justice Rabi Sukul which I addressed last week on this Blog continues to reverberate in the community, along with two other issues with implications for the judiciary. The first involved unusually swift justice dispensed in the case of baby-sitter who admitted to slapping her one year old charge, the daughter of a magistrate mother and a lawyer father. Without even asking for a Probation Officer’s report, the magistrate sentenced the legally unrepresented teenager to five years in prison. One section of the press had earlier reported the sentence as sixty months but that appears not to be correct.

The second issue raises the question whether a lawyer admitted to practise in the Courts of Guyana who is subsequently convicted in another jurisdiction should be allowed to return to practise in the Guyana Courts. Both in this and the Justice Sukul’s matter the (alleged) misconduct took place outside of Guyana.

There is a striking contrast between the considerable media attention and feedback to these issues and the silence of the major stakeholders over the challenges facing the judiciary. Even if this matter had involved a puisne judge it would have been serious enough to warrant attention. In this case a Court of Appeal Judge and the constitutional body the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) are involved but yet there is virtual silence from the head of the Bar, Minister of Legal Affairs and Legal Adviser to the Government.
Continue reading “The Budget cuts case”

Posted on

An embarrassment rather than a celebration

Introduction
Fate could hardly have been crueler. This week marks the first occasion that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is meeting in Guyana as an itinerant court. It should have been a moment of pride for our judiciary and a tribute to our own Justice Madame Desiree Bernard, CCH, OR on whose long legal career, including a place on the CCJ, the curtain will soon close. Instead, the cocktails and lunches being arranged for our distinguished visiting legal luminaries will not erase the embarrassment of the most recently appointed member of our appellate court Justice Rabi Sukul being disbarred from practising in the UK by the Bar Council of England and Wales for intentionally misleading his client by drafting false grounds of appeal.

At every hopeful point at which the pessimists think the country has exhausted its sack of scandals, another one surfaces, exposing the immoral underbelly of a soulless country: one of failed, or dysfunctional, or non-functional national institutions. A separate piece can be written about every one of those institutions and even more about the individuals responsible for their moribund state. But we – and I mean mainly the business class and the professionals – are too comfortable, compromised or cowardly to challenge the illegalities and improprieties that are perpetrated daily by public offices in Guyana.

What is frightening is that a colleague who practises daily in the courts told me that the sin of drafting false grounds of appeal that led to the disbarment of former Justice Sukul is committed regularly in the Guyana courts, even by seasoned lawyers. Those civilized rules seem alien to Guyana where an attorney convicted and jailed in Canada practises in the courts in Berbice despite the information about his conviction having been brought to the attention of and acknowledged by the Attorney General.
Continue reading “An embarrassment rather than a celebration”

Posted on

Written Submission to the Select Committee on the AML+CFT (Amendment) Bill 2013

The following is the text of recommendations made to Mr. David Granger, Leader of the Opposition, in connection with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Finance of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2013. In addition to these recommendations, I provided him with a copy of my submission to the Select Committee on May 24, 2013 (see here)

In my view there is need not only to address the amending legislation but the principal Act as well. Indeed I do not believe that there is anything particularly troublesome about the amendments: the problems are with the principal Act.
Continue reading “Written Submission to the Select Committee on the AML+CFT (Amendment) Bill 2013”

Posted on

Satisfaction with the appointment of an Ombudsman

I would like to express satisfaction and extend my congratulations on the appointment of retired Judge Winston Moore as Ombudsman. To President Ramotar I say well done on this first step to establishing and/or restoring non-functioning constitutional offices, and to Mr Moore congratulations. It must have taken courage by the President to make the announcement to fill an office that his predecessor left vacant for more than a full presidential term.

Guyana has the distinction of being the first country in the Commonwealth Caribbean and Western hemisphere and second only to New Zealand among Common-wealth countries to have a constitutionally entrenched Ombudsman system. In Guyana, the Office of Ombudsman is a requirement of the constitution and is buttressed by a separate statute.

The Office of Ombudsman was created in the 1966 Independence Constitution and its powers have remained largely unchanged since then: to investigate any administrative action taken by any government department or other authority or by the President, ministers, officers or members of any government department or other authority. The 1980 Constitution brought actions by the President within the scope of the Ombudsman’s powers.

Given the tremendous backlog of matters which would fall to be investigated and the loss of institutional capacity to deal with them, Mr Moore has a herculean task on his hands. He will need not only the necessary resources but also the cooperation of the public and of the government agencies against which complaints are lodged.

In a Foreword to the publication of the Role of the Ombudsman in Guyana by the previous Ombuds-man, Mr S Y Mohamed, former Chancellor of the Judiciary Keith Massiah noted that Mr Mohamed had “exposed the frustrations of the Office, the scant regard paid to his recommendations by public officials, seeming lack of parliamentary interest in his work and the discourtesy of some public officers…”

At the swearing-in of Mr Moore, President Ramotar said that “constitutionally the country needs not only an Ombudsman but one that is effective.” The President must now ensure that the resources to make the office effective are provided and that the government establishes a strict protocol requiring public officers to cooperate with the Ombudsman and his staff.