The Caribbean Court of Justice handed down a ruling on June 18 that was hugely consequential for a number of reasons but especially for the future of the current Guyanese government, its burgeoning oil industry, and for the perception of the CCJ in Guyana and the wider Caribbean. As a result of the decision, Guyana is now set to have an election. How the nation got to this point via the CCJ ruling, and what long-term implications the court’s role in this matter played, are important considerations for all Guyanese, and the Caribbean family at large. So let’s look in-depth at the ins and outs of the June 18 verdict.
The Facts of the Case
The CCJ decision surrounded the validity of a no-confidence motion passed by Guyana’s National Assembly last December. The background centres on a dispute over the nation’s burgeoning oil industry, with its early January 2017 discovery of an estimated 1.4 billion barrels, turning the nation of 786,000 into a major oil producer, and subsequent discovery of further reserves bringing the total to over 5.5 billion barrels.
Following prior proceedings in Guyana and a subsequent appeal to the CCJ, a key issue was the eligibility of parliamentarian Charrandass Persaud to vote in the no-confidence motion. It was a particularly critical consideration as the motion was passed on the razor-thin majority of 33 to 32.
CCJ President Justice Adrian Saunders, alongside four of his colleagues, ultimately declared that the vote was valid, upholding the no-confidence motion. It was also noted that the avenue for challenging Persaud’s eligibility should have been brought within 28 days of his election – which it was not – and so his vote stands. Now the Caribbean is set to see what this landmark case does to the CCJ’s foundations.
Beyond National Justice
This case is a prominent example of the power the CCJ has in the region. For advocates of it, the CCJ was empowered long ago to make a decision such as this, and the decision arrived at was simply an expression of the power conferred in it. But though the CCJ may regularly decide on cases that impact business and industry matters in a sovereign nation, this is an example of an electoral process being bound by it. This may, in time, generate new debate and controversy surrounding the court’s role.
The world has no shortage of precedents where higher courts have decided on electoral matters. Arguably, the US presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000 – with voting so close in Florida that Bush was only declared the winner after a Supreme Court case surrounding a recount of votes – is the most famous global example of this occurring. Even so, this was an electoral process resolved by a national court, not an international one.
For a Guyanese who disagrees with the decision the CCJ made, its overarching authority in Guyana may be a matter of lament right now. The trade-off to this is that the role of the CCJ has arisen, in part, to offer an alternative to the UK Privy Council. While some Guyanese may feel frustrated that a regional court has reached this decision, the frustration would likely be even higher were it made by a court far outside the region, and today largely remote from regional life.
Nonetheless, a number of constitutional crises through the 20th century in nations with British heritage have shown the challenge here. The Balfour Declaration of 1926 in Canada, the 1975 Whitlam government dismissal in Australia, the 1984 currency devaluation in New Zealand, and the 2012-2013 parliamentary deadlock in the South Pacific nation of Tuvalu were all influenced by the question of to what extent London has an ongoing influence in a local government dispute.
The fact that these disputes were all resolved – and relatively quickly – could be cited by those in support of the CCJ’s authority, proving that even if a major issue did arise with the CCJ, there’s recourse within a country’s national law that could see a government seize exclusive control once more. But constitutional crises are never desired nor predictable, and ultimately critics of the CCJ will cite countries such as the US – which regards its highest national court as the final legal authority – as the ideal template for a nation’s judicial system.
The Road Ahead for Guyana
In response to the CCJ decision that found the vote of no-confidence in his government valid, President Granger announced he would call an election. The Guyanese Elections Commission will have a substantial task ahead of it updating voting rolls. Some predictions place as high as 200,000 the number of incorrect registrations on current electoral rolls.
President Granger indicated in his June 18 remarks that the Guyanese Elections Commission has advised a date in November would be possible for an election, with a precise date to be provided once the roll updates have been completed.
The people of Guyana now know that an end is in sight to this chapter, but it may yet result in further upheaval. The November date remains a comparatively long time away but, given that the constitutional deadline of an election by March 19, 2019 has already passed, uncertainty will continue surrounding the future of the Guyanese oil industry.
The Verdict
Guyana does indeed have a future as an oil-producing nation. However, should the opposition People’s Progressive Party win in November, it has promised to renegotiate the terms of production-sharing agreements previously agreed with global oil companies.
In the meantime, oil companies and their employees face a nervous few months ahead. With the first oil output due in early 2020, soon after the election, the end of the year could deliver another high-octane chapter for the Guyanese government, whoever then occupies office.
This case has underscored the CCJ’s regional power, and supporters of it will champion that, but one need not look far to find nations that have held interest in joining the CCJ but retain doubts about doing so. It is worth pointing out that even though the court is headquartered in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, the dual-island Caribbean nation has not yet joined other nations and made itself subject to CCJ jurisdiction.
Time will tell whether this case incentivises other member nations to come under the CCJ umbrella, or to instead steer clear and opt for other avenues to reach a final judicial outcome.
