Ian Chang, Carl Singh appointments… Attorney General lied – David Granger

“It must be a transparent process. If interviewed by a panel and they are the best, I will agree.”

By Abena Rockcliffe
A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) leader, David Granger yesterday refuted the statements made by Attorney General Anil Nandlall in relation to confirmation of Justice Carl Singh as Chancellor and Justice Ian Chang  as Chief Justice.
The Opposition Leader told media operatives that the Attorney General (AG) lied, and that Nandlall was not even part of the meeting during which the subject was discussed.
Kaieteur News yesterday reported the AG as saying that the government is seeking to confirm Justice Singh and Justice Chang in their respective positions that they are currently acting —Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice — but Granger had said no to this proposal.
Nandlall also told the press that even though Granger was opposed to the appointment, he offered no reason to support his stance.
The AG said, too, that both Singh and Chang have security of tenure, given the positions they hold. Singh is substantive Chief Justice while Chang holds the position of a Court of Appeal Judge.
In accordance with Article 127 (1) of the Constitution, the President and the Leader of the Opposition must agree on the appointment of the Chancellor and Chief Justice.
Granger stressed yesterday that the Constitution did not stipulate for a mere consultation, but a complete agreement to be made between the Head of State and the Opposition Leader.
Former Leader of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNC/R) Robert Corbin started consultation some eight years with the then President, Bharrat Jagdeo, but that ended in deadlock.
Granger informed that he met with President Donald Ramotar on March 6 of this year. He said that he was accompanied by two attorneys at law from APNU, while the President was accompanied by only his advisor, Dr Roger Luncheon. Granger said that at the meeting he proposed “a series of measures” in order to break the deadlock.
The Opposition Leader said he told the President that the vacancies should be advertised in the Eastern Caribbean, where other jurisdictions share Guyana’s laws. He said that the move is so that the people of Guyana can be assured that the best person would be appointed.
According to Granger, the President did not, at that time, indicate if he agreed…”but I would like to point out that APNU was not opposed to any particular names… names were not a part of the discussion”.
Granger said that the discussion was more about the method to be used to appoint. “So I would like to point out that the statement alleged to be made by the AG to the effect that I said no is a lie.”
Further, Granger sought to clear the air on the statement that he had advanced no reasons, saying that he “advanced very clear reasons why the process that was initiated by the President should be taken to another stage. It must be a transparent process.”
The Opposition Leader pressed again that Nandlall issued a “blatant lie in the press”, and disclosed that he wrote the President to have the AG withdraw his statements.
Granger said that Singh is the substantive Chief Justice and Chang is a substantive Justice of Appeal, and he doesn’t propose that they be removed from those positions.
“After eight years of deadlock we need to move forward and I proposed a methodology to move forward…and if interviewed by a panel and they are the best, I will agree.”
Granger pointed out the Chief Justice of Belize is Guyanese,”so let’s go for the best and if it turns out that they are the best so be it… but let’s embark on a transparent process.”
APNU Member of Parliament Joseph Harmon stated emphatically that the party’s objection was all about the process, not personalities.
“What must not escape us is the timing of the statement. This discussion was since March 6, and the AG is seeking to redirect the nation’s discourse away from the obvious incompetence and disregard for the rule of law by the government. They are trying to take the public’s eye off the non-compliance with the recommendations of CFATF (Caribbean Financial Action Task Force), which is that the opposition should be consulted, in dealing with the Anti Money Laundering Bill.”
Harmon said that Nandlall is misleading the nation both on matters related to the budget cuts of 2012 and about the President’s non compliance to the constitution as it relates to the signing of two opposition-proposed Bills.
“It is clear that Nandlall’s advice to the President is bad, his advice about constitutionality is bad.”