Latest update March 28th, 2024 12:59 AM
Jul 18, 2017 News
A ruling handed down by Chief Justice (Ag) Roxane George yesterday essentially ruled against President David Granger’s interpretation of the constitution as it regards the appointment of a chairman to head the Guyana Elections Commission, (GECOM).
The Chief Justice in her ruling noted that the constitution gives no reference for judicial persons but for other categories of persons who are found to be fit and proper for the post.
In her ruling Justice George noted that the GECOM chairman does not necessarily have be a judicial officer, or a person qualified as such.
The person, she noted, however, must have judge-like qualities and possess integrity honesty and impartiality. She stressed that the words ‘fit and proper’ can apply to persons from a number of professions or calling.
The judge noted that Article 162 (2) of the Constitution speaks to the need for dialogue and compromise. As such, she noted that Granger in rejecting the list provided by the opposition should give reason for the rejection of the names as it would give an indication of those to be accepted.
While agreeing with the Court‘s determination, Attorney for the Guyana Bar Association, Sanjeev Datadin, raised concerns in relation to certain aspects of the ruling.
Datadin said that based on the ruling, it is his personal view that the Judge was not entitled as a matter of law to make pronouncements on matters which are not directly before the court on an issue without inviting parties involved to offer submissions on the subject.
A statement from the Ministry of the Presidency said that Chief Justice, Madame Roxanne George-Wiltshire, upheld the Government’s conviction that it is the President who must determine whether the list of nominees submitted by the Leader of the Opposition for the position of Chairmanship of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is acceptable.
The Chief Justice also confirmed in her ruling that it is the President, acting in his own deliberate judgement, who must determine whether a person is ‘fit and proper’.
The ruling was made on a case brought against the Attorney General, Minister Basil Williams, by Mr. Marcel Gaskin, a private citizen, who had asked the High Court to provide an interpretation of the Constitution as it relates to the selection of a Chairman for GECOM.
The Chief Justice advised that there is no legal requirement for the President to state reasons for rejecting a list, though it is her belief that in the furtherance of democracy and good governance, he should since Article 161 (2) speaks to the need for dialogue and compromise.
The President has made consultation and dialogue a priority, meeting with the Opposition Leader, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo and other members of the Opposition as recent as June 12, 2017. They had previously met on March 08, 2017.
The Chief Justice further advised that it is the Head of State who has sole discretion on the determination of what is ‘fit and proper’ and as such, the President is not obligated to select a person from the six names on a list of which he has determined positively that the persons thereon are unacceptable as fit and proper persons for appointment.
Further, the Chief Justice stated in her ruling that the President must consider each person unless the President provided the Leader of the Opposition with guidelines of who is unacceptable. President Granger did provide the Leader of the Opposition with a list of criteria based on his interpretation of the Constitution, for a person to be qualified for the position of Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission in a letter sent on March 16, 2017. The Leader of the Opposition did not object to those criteria and submitted a second list.
The Chief Justice ruled that the President did not have to wait for the submission of a new list. He, according to the Constitution, could have gone ahead and appointed a Chairman, having rejected the first list.
Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo has a problem with this. “I am informed that in the course of her ruling, the Honourable Chief Justice is interpreted to have said that if the President deems every name on a list as unacceptable, then the proviso to Article 161 applies,” Mr Jagdeo noted.
“If this report is correct, we respectfully take issue with this aspect of the Chief Justice’s ruling. We maintain most resolutely that the proviso only applies when no list has been submitted. That once a list has been submitted, the proviso has no applicability.”
It is public knowledge that a list was submitted several months ago. The first six names on that list were rejected and a second set of six names was substituted.
“The second set of names has also been rejected and a third set of names shall be submitted shortly–all upon the invitation of the President.”
Mr Jagdeo contended that the proviso to Article 162 of the Constitution was not placed before the Court for its interpretation, nor was it part of any of the questions posed to the Court, nor was it the subject of any legal submissions, either from the Applicant’s, nor the Guyana Bar Association’s nor his Attorneys-at-Law. It is therefore rather strange that such a proposition appears to form part of the ruling in the case.
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 28, 2024
Minister Ramson challenge athletes to better last year’s performance By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – Guyana’s 23-member contingent for the CARIFTA Games in Grenada is set to depart the...B.V. Police Station Kaieteur News – The Beterverwagting Police Station, East Coast Demerara (ECD) will be reconstructed... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]