October 30 ,2020
Dear Editor,
I refer to the article published in the Stabroek News 29th October, 2020 under the caption ‘Nandlall, Jonas for silk – Office of the Presi-dent’, and recognize the attempt at balance. In that light, please permit me space in your column to assist.
Earlier this year, I filed proceedings in Court to challenge the power of the President to unilaterally appoint Senior Counsel. My view is that the legal underpinning of this power, which used to be exercised by the Queen, has now in Guyana passed to the judiciary, and any involvement by the Executive is ceremonial, subject always to the imprimatur of the Judiciary. Therefore, in my view, when the former President announced a unilateral appointment of Silk without the imprimatur of the judiciary, I felt that he acted without authority and asked the Court to determine where in law the power resided – judiciary or executive.
The question is important: politicization of the process and lack of transparency reduce public confidence, and cheapen the process itself. I wish also to be clear: the question has no bearing on the quality or eligibility of the individuals ‘appointed’ by the former President, all of whom have distinguished themselves and can justly claim professional standing in their own right.
On 26th October, 2020, I received a phone call from the Executive, informing me that the appointment of Senior Counsel was being considered, and asking if I would accept the appointment. I responded that it was my view that the prerogative to appoint Silk was the province of the Judiciary, and that any Executive involvement would be without jurisdiction unless in accordance with the imprimatur of the judiciary. I explained the nature of my Court proceedings, and advised that I could not accept an appointment of Silk without the imprimatur of the judiciary.
The following day, I was again contacted and informed that the judiciary had granted its imprimatur. The legal requirements identified by me had been met.
Despite that comfort, Counsel representing me in the proceedings reminded me that although we felt that the law had been observed, several parties in the proceedings have contended that the judiciary also does not have the power to appoint Silk.
Although I do not share that view, the fact is that it is raised in Court and is sub judice – a live issue for the determination of the Court. The Court must decide who has the power of appointment, whether the judiciary or the executive or neither, and when the Court rules, we will all know and there will be transparency and public confidence. I have therefore written to the Judiciary to request that the Full Court take no further action in my regard until the Court rules, and we all know what ought to be done. I trust the Judiciary will forgive my presumption.
Yours faithfully,
Timothy Jonas