Former Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall has filed a motion for early hearing of the appeal he filed, challenging the decision by acting Chief Justice (CJ) Roxane George to throw out his order seeking Cabinet’s resignation.
After the Chief Justice refused to grant the order for Cabinet to resign earlier this month, Nandlall appealed the decision last week on the grounds that Justice George made a mistake in her ruling.
In his application for early hearing that was filed on Wednesday, Nandlall pointed out that the appeal raises matters of fundamental constitutional issues central to democracy, good governance, the Rule of Law and public order, and as such, it is of high public importance that this appeal be heard and determined with convenient speed.
He further argued that the breach of the Constitution, that is, the willful refusal of Cabinet to resign consequent of the Government being defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of no-confidence as mandated by Article 106 (6) of the Constitution, flagrantly continues unabated.
“Cabinet therefore continues to unlawfully sit and make decisions in absolute violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution. It cannot be in the public national interest and in the interest of the Rule of Law for such wanton violated of the Constitution to continue. The hearing of this matter can be completed in less than three hours,” the former AG contended in his request for the motion to be granted.
No date is fixed as yet for the hearing of this new motion.
In her ruling on October 18, Justice George had noted that a first instance court such as the High Court cannot contradict the higher court’s ruling. She pointed out that the Caribbean Court Justice (CCJ) had said that notwithstanding the Cabinet’s resignation, it still continued in office as a caretaker government.
She said that both Nandlall and Attorney General Basil Williams referenced this passage in their submissions to the Court, though she acknowledged that such references were made in different contexts.
“In my view… the CCJ did make a pronouncement on the resignation of the President and Cabinet. Given the language of the CCJ… the effect of the (No-Confidence Motion) was the immediate resignation of the Cabinet, but the Court clearly stated that notwithstanding this, the tenure in office of Cabinet (and) President… is on a different footing”.
“Given this pronouncement, there could not have been… any requirement for a mandatory order compelling the Cabinet, including the President, to give effect to the resignation of the Cabinet, including the President, which occurred by operation of law consequent on the NCM,” Justice George said in her ruling.
However, in the Notice of Appeal, Nandlall is seeking an order from the Court of Appeal compelling Cabinet and the President to resign, as a consequence of them being defeated by a No-Confidence vote.
Apart from asking for a mandatory order to force the Government to give effect to such a ruling, Nandlall is also asking for a conservatory order restraining Cabinet (which stands resigned following the CCJ ruling on June 21, 2019), including the President, from meeting.
The former AG further stated in his Notice of Appeal that the CJ “erred in law in failing to properly give a true interpretation to and give effect to the clear and unambiguous provisions of Article 106 (6) of the Constitution, commanding, mandating and requiring the resignation of the Cabinet, including the President, when the Government is defeated by a vote of majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly”.
Among Nandlall’s other contentions is that Justice George failed to properly interpret the ruling of the CCJ in the consolidated appeals related to the No-Confidence vote. According to Nandlall, she also failed to properly apply the Doctrine of Stare decisis or the principle that treats with precedents set by higher courts.
