By Egland Gomes- Guyanese at home and in the diaspora should we now question the credibility of the Caribbean Court of Justice in the decision handed down, where the court unanimously held that the Guyana Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to make the ruling it made regarding the interpretation of “more votes are cast,” and therefore that decision could not stand?
Let us reconcile the decision of the court with the now-public fallout concerning allegations about President Mr. Justice Winston Anderson’s leadership and alleged attempts to influence the decision of the court.
How can we accept that the CCJ’s July 2020 ruling did not simply prefer one political outcome over another? The court unanimously held that the Guyana Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to make the ruling it made regarding the interpretation of “more votes are cast,” and therefore that decision could not stand. The CCJ also ruled that the Chief Election Officer’s report that relied on that Court of Appeal decision was invalid.
According to the CCJ, as Guyana’s final appellate court, it had the authority to determine whether the Court of Appeal’s decision properly fell within the constitutional provision being relied on. The CCJ concluded that it did not.
A balanced way to look at it is:
Critics of the decision argue that the CCJ overreached and became involved in a politically charged electoral dispute. Supporters argue that the CCJ was performing its constitutional role as Guyana’s final court of appeal and ensuring that constitutional procedures were followed. The credibility of the court should be assessed by examining the legal reasoning in the judgment, the constitutional provisions involved, and whether the reasoning was applied consistently, rather than solely by whether one agrees with the political outcome.
In a constitutional democracy, it is reasonable to scrutinise any court, including the CCJ. The stronger question is not, “Did the court reach the result we wanted?” but, “Was its legal reasoning sound, impartial, and consistent with the Constitution?” That is the standard by which judicial credibility is usually judged.
We have now learned from emails reportedly in the public domain of allegations that Court President Justice Winston Anderson attempted to influence a decision of the court. If so, which decisions did he allegedly attempt to influence? Were there other considerations that may have influenced the July 2020 decision of the court to overturn the decision of the Guyana Court of Appeal?
