October 24 2018
Dear Editor,
Our politicians have to be careful about what they are saying lest they reinforce the belief that for them politics is about raw, naked power and self-aggrandisement and the only time they unite and are cordial is in attending to their remuneration packages.
The Appeal Court, last week, handed down its decision that the President did not act outside of the scope of the Guyana Constitution in appointing the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission, not from a List submitted to him by the Leader of the Opposition. Article 161(2), which identifies how a Chairman is arrived at, is very clear-cut.
The first paragraph in this Article allows for a name to be extracted from a List, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition to the President, of which he will find “not unacceptable” to him. The second paragraph allows for, where there is failure to satisfy paragraph one, the President to appoint a Judge. Whereas the first paragraph has in the past been utilised to extract the names for appointment as Chairman, the presence of the second paragraph is not without relevance. Every single Article in the Constitution has relevance.
We can argue whether the utilisation of paragraph two was the best approach employed by President David Granger. Nothing is wrong in exploring this given the general mood in society to create a political space of inclusion, which paragraph one at this juncture in our history may seem better suited. The other argument that Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo may have failed to present a List of complete persons deemed “fit and proper” for the President to extract a name from also aids the discourse. The Court weighed in on this in its ruling on the case brought by Marcel Gaskin, and offered pertinent advice as to how the two leaders can engage with each other on matters of national import. Arguments should not include attacks on the Justices or the Judiciary
The politicians complaining about the President’s use of paragraph two must also take responsibility for ensuring its presence in the Constitution. This acknowledgement escaped Donald Ramotar and Anil Nandlall in their letters to the media. The opportunity was presented during Constitutional Reform (1999-2001) to excise or make it more explicit. That it has a presence in the Constitution, it is law. And where both Courts have so accepted its presence it stands until such time a higher Court rules otherwise, it is repealed or amended. When it comes to the Rule of Law we don’t get to cherry pick it and this is the way it must be.
At the same time it is encouraging that where dissatisfaction exists on the Court’s ruling the aggrieved will seek to pursue the grievance at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). However, it is noted that even in the attempt to pursue this channel the effort by Jagdeo to put the CCJ on notice that he expects a particular ruling lest its credibility be brought into question. This is a troubling perception and could send the signals that CCJ, like the High and Appeal Courts, will not be allowed the opportunity to function, guided by established principles and existing laws.
Overt attempts at bullying the Courts to rule in favour of any particular group is dangerous because underpinning of the Judiciary is the principle that justice is blind. The Judicature is supposed to be independent and all efforts must be made to secure and strengthen this not undermine it.
Instructively, when the Court ruled on the interpretation of the qualifying conditions for a person to be considered as a candidate for Chairman-paragraph one of Article 161(2)- such ruling was consistent with the extant Article and not Granger’s opinion that that person has to be a judge. The Court’s decision received kudos from the political opposition. As clear-cut as paragraph one is so too is paragraph two.
The politics being employed around this case is reinforcing the importance of the need for constitutional education not only at the University of Guyana but as part of a National Policy and ensconced in the Education curriculum. Where the politicians will seek to make mileage and further divide us, we need to start cultivating a society where present and future generations will not fall prey, having being empowered to hold politicians to account based on the law. Ignorance of the Constitution works to the politicians’ advantage and the masses detriment.
As the Local Government Elections campaign are heating up it is being noted one camp is promoting these as an opportunity to take back government, and the other not putting power back in the hands of its opponent. This country belongs to all of us and this nonsense must stop. Political maturity, which the masses are crying out for, would see a campaign of competing ideas that would bring about sound policies and programmes for the benefit of all.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis