More preliminary submissions by Respondent
– Judge asks for substantive submissions
ATTORNEY-at-Law Anil Nandlall, representing the Attorney General in the C.N. Sharma Constitutional case, yesterday submitted additional preliminary submissions to go with those – including immunity on the President – that were earlier made by the Attorney General.

Trial judge, Justice William Ramlal invited the Attorney General to reply at least to two of the submissions in the Sharma’s affidavit.

The A.G. was given three days within which to put his submissions in writing.

Sharma’s lawyer, Mr. Nigel Hughes was also given three days to put his reply in writing.

The hearing was adjourned to Wednesday May 7, at 13.30 hrs.

The Applicant had filed a notice of Motion in which he had sought, among other things, several declarations in relation to the suspension of his T.V. licence for alleged infringements.

In his additional preliminary submissions to the Court yesterday, Mr. Nandlall respectfully submitted that none of the ‘reliefs’ which the Applicant seeks ought to be granted.

Dealing with each separately, he began with the heading – The Conservatory Orders.

He stated: “The Applicant claims two conservatory orders which seek to ‘suspend the purported suspension’ or to restrain the continuation of the purported suspension of the Applicant’s licence until the hearing and determination of the Notice of Motion.

“It is clear that the conservatory orders which are sought are in the form of interim orders. These conservatory orders are executory orders, that is, they can be enforced by the Courts. It is also clear that the substantive reliefs or the final orders which are sought are all declarations. It is trite and well settled that declaratory orders are not enforceable orders.”

After quoting a Declaratory Judgment, the lawyer said the applicant is therefore seeking as interim reliefs, executory or enforceable orders but is only claiming declaratory reliefs, that is, non-executory or unenforceable reliefs as his reliefs.

According to Nandlall, it is clear from the express language of Article 182 that President Jagdeo is not subject to the curial process.

So that even if the Court is minded to grant the Orders they cannot be enforced. A court does not act in vain, does not make futile Orders and ought to be very wary of granting orders which it is incapable of enforcing.

Dealing with the Orders rule Nisi of Certiorari, Mr. Nandlall said the Applicant seeks two orders, rule nisi of Certiorari seeking to quash the decision of the Minister responsible for broadcasting and communication.

The Minister is identified both in the Notice of Motion and in the Affidavit in Support thereof as His Excellency President Bharrat Jagdeo.

He added, “It is a notorious fact that there is presently no Minister of the Government charged with responsibility in respect of broadcasting and communication. It is also a notorious fact that Bharrat Jagdeo is the President of the Republic of Guyana. He is not a Minister of the Government”, Mr. Nandlall emphasised.