Rejecting Granger’s shortlists
Dec 19, 2017 , https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...grangers-shortlists/
The Leader of the Opposition should not participate in any consultations with the President of Guyana, on the appointment of a Chancellor and Chief Justice, as long as the President is going to nominate persons arising out of the search process initiated by the government.
The Constitution makes no provision for any committee to be appointed, much less by the executive arm of the state, to interview and shortlist persons for appointment to the top judicial positions. This is an extra-constitutional mechanism which shows the contempt of the Granger administration for the Constitution.
This column will therefore repeat some of the earlier arguments made about this process.
Earlier this year, the Government of Guyana advertised for applications for the positions of Chief Justice and Chancellor, the first time in recent history this has happened. According to a report in the state-owned media, those persons interested in the jobs were required to submit their applications to an email address which originates in the Ministry of the Presidency, the seat of Executive authority.
The Constitution makes no provision for any such advertisement for the job. The Constitution states that the positions are to be filled by persons appointed by the President, with the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition.
As is well known, the PNCR was opposed to the appointment of the former acting Chancellor, Justice Carl Singh (he therefore held the substantive position of Chief Justice). The former acting Chief Justice, Ian Chang could not therefore be confirmed. The AFC has never supported the PNCR on the position it took with regard to the non-confirmation of Justices Chang and Singh.
The now President, David Granger, when he was Leader of the Opposition, had simply continued the policy of Robert Corbin, of not agreeing to the appointment of Justice Carl Singh. As such, the position of Chancellor remained vacant.
The Constitution does not provide for a mechanism to break the deadlock which may arise when there is no agreement between the Leader of the Opposition and the President. The reason is that these appointments are intended to be consensual, just like the Chairman of GECOM.
Incidentally, this form of shared governance, regarding the appointment of the Chancellor and Chief Justice, was also proposed by former US President Jimmy Carter as a means of promoting greater political consensus and giving the opposition a greater role in appointments.
Granger, when in opposition, had pushed the line that there should be advertisements for the top posts. When pressured by those who felt this would amount to an extra-constitutional measure, he put it as a means of breaking the deadlock.
There is at present, no deadlock over who is to be appointed as Chancellor or Chief Justice, because there has been no consultation on this issue between the President and the Leader of the Opposition.
Yet, the government has gone ahead and advertised for the posts of the two top positions, and among those who were said to have constituted the panel to examine the applications, was the person who has now been appointed as Chairman of GECOM.
The government therefore is trampling on the Constitution. There is no provision for advertising of positions for the two top judicial posts.
There was also no need for persons outside of Guyana to have been invited to apply for the posts of Chancellor and Chief Justice.
Traditionally, those posts were held by persons practicing in our justice system. We have a history of producing some of the best jurists in the Caribbean. When the names of the first batch of Justices of the Caribbean Court of Justice were announced, two persons who practiced here were among that cohort.
We have never been short of quality and qualified jurists. Why then has it been deemed necessary to seek advertisements for the jobs, when this could mean persons who practice outside of Guyana and non-Guyanese being able to apply?
However, the more substantive concern is that there is no requirement, under our Constitution, for advertisements, and there is no disagreement as yet requiring a deadlock-breaking mechanism.
The second major problem with this approach to filling the positions of Chief Justice and Chancellor is that it is a violation of the separation of powers. The Executive should have no role to play in advertising for these positions and in establishing any panel to consider the applications.
There is no provision for such an approach under our Constitution. The independence of the judiciary is threatened when the executive arm of the government can decide to advertise for judicial appointments and then sets up its own panel to consider those applications.
So long as the government is going to use an extra-constitutional process so as to shortlist persons for the two top judicial posts, the Opposition Leader should steer clear. He should now reject Granger’s shortlists.
