There is COVID-19 that has placed limitations on so many things. The pandemic placed a limit on sporting activities so there has scarcely been a cricket or a football match. Gyms have been closed but people still managed to find ways and means of staying healthy.
People would pass by the often vilified D’Urban Park and see scores of people either early in the morning or late in the afternoons going through their paces.
People who were once considered couch potatoes and who gained weight have suddenly found the time to go out for some much needed exercise.
The one place that seems to be void of people in any number happen to be the court. The High Court appears to be void of people. Yet the number of cases keeps mounting. The murder trials are continuing apace as are the civil matters.
A relatively new technology called Zoom has replaced the need for people to be present in the courts. But even here there are problems.
In a country the size of Guyana one would have expected the communication system to be better.
There are three internet service providers yet the quality of the service they provide leaves a lot to be desired. Some cases have to be further postponed because sometimes people cannot be heard.
That is sad because matters that could be completed within days have to be prolonged with the hope that the internet connection would improve. Of course this is not always the case but many cases are forced to be adjourned.
Safe distancing often prevents the kind of numbers from gathering in one spot. The result is that cross examinations are often stilted. Lawyers desire to see the people with whom they are speaking but they have to make do with what is presented.
The witness can always dodge by pretending not to hear the question. Of course, this cannot go on indefinitely but for a while the witness can succeed.
Using this system the courts are being asked to hear some interesting cases. One of them has to do with the elections petitions brought by the coalition. The hope is that these petitions will be heard under normal conditions.
But there are others. Lawyers are now challenging the right of a Minister to sit in the National Assembly by virtue of the dual citizenship she once held.
After Charrandass Persaud voted with the opposition back in 2018 lawyers moved to the courts to invoke the section of the law that stipulates no person who holds dual citizenship should sit in the National Assembly.
So this Minister, Ms. Oneidge Walrond, held dual citizenship. The issue did not arise because she was not on the list of candidates. However, it did come up after she took the oath of office.
The woman said that she had renounced her foreign citizenship but the Clerk of the National Assembly said that he had not seen the certificate of renunciation. When it did come there was the question of the date.
The lawyers for the Coalition are saying that the renunciation came after Ms. Walrond was sworn in. They are asking the Clerk of the National Assembly to make the document public.
Trying to serve two masters, the Clerk is hesitant to release the certificate. He does not want to antagonize the government like so many people these days. The result is that the lawyers for the Coalition are threatening legal action.
A letter from the Chambers of Attorney Roysdale Forde, Senior Counsel, has been dispatched to the Clerk.
“The information released by Mrs. Oneidge Walrond and which is in the public domain indicates that Mrs. Oneidge Walrond was not qualified to be appointed as a Minister of Government and or Member of Parliament.
“It is clear that the appointment of Mrs. Oneidge Walrond was in breach of the Constitution and consequently invalid.
“We are of the firm view that Mrs. Oneidge Walrond is not lawfully a member of the National Assembly and ought to be so declared.
“We are also of the view that the failure to respond to the aforesaid Letter by supplying a copy of the Certificate of Renunciation is most untenable.
“The inaction by yourself and the Speaker of the National Assembly in the face of the unconstitutional appointment of Mrs. Oneidge Walrond is unacceptable and constitutes a violation of your obligation to uphold the Constitution of Guyana.”
The letter states that the failure to comply with the request would result in the institution of legal proceedings to prevent this flagrant breach of the Constitution.
One side of the coin is that Ms. Walrond sought to renounce her foreign citizenship before she was sworn in. The date of renunciation is after the swearing in. At issue here is whether she became eligible to sit in the National Assembly when she applied to renounce her foreign citizenship.
The other issue is that she continues to be foreign national until the certificate of renunciation was granted.
So the courts must gear themselves to hear another issue that should never have to reach there.
There are going to be other legal issues beyond the termination of the contracts held by some people. The termination of contracts by companies is another matter. The Attorney General was not in possession of all the facts when he terminated three of those contracts.
If he, and by extension the government, holds firm to continue the witch hunt the courts would be kept busy.
