against the discharge of a detainee pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal matter, save where the rights of the detainee are removed or altered by an express statutory provision, as was done in England and Wales by section 15 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. The Privy Council rested its decision to decline jurisdiction both on that basis and, as well, on the ground that no specific statute was enacted granting it such a jurisdiction. [34] The Court is not persuaded by this authority for two reasons. Firstly, as in Dany Sylvie Marie and Senanayake, there was no suggestion in Kozeny that the courts below had wrongly assumed jurisdiction. Secondly, the court’s decision sought to uphold constitutional values. If we were satisfied that the Court of Appeal had rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Article 177(4), we too would have no difficulty refusing to grant Messrs Ali and Jagdeo special leave to appeal. But it is altogether a different matter if the Court of Appeal embarked upon a wrongful exercise of jurisdiction that had the effect of infringing constitutional principles by trespassing on the jurisdiction of the High Court. [35] As the final Court of Appeal of Guyana, this Court has a responsibility to ensure that there is adherence to the Constitution. Not only is this Court so entitled but it has a solemn duty to assess whether the Court of Appeal, in all the circumstances, rightly assumed jurisdiction to hear Ms David’s Application within Article 177(4). Given all that has been stated above and, in particular, the public importance of this case and its significant constitutional implications, and upon a perusal of what was placed before the Court of Appeal (See: [12] – [14] above), we have no hesitation in granting Messrs Ali and Jagdeo special leave to bring these proceedings. We are satisfied that this Court has both the jurisdiction and responsibility to do so. A determination of the merits of their appeal requires us a) to consider the legal and constitutional scheme for elections in Guyana and b) to interrogate more closely the provisions of Article 177.