THE WISDOM OF SEEKING SECOND AND THIRD OPINIONS

May 22, 2012 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The principal legal adviser to the government is the Minister of Legal Affairs who also happens to be the Attorney General. When the President needs advice on legal matters, it is expected that he will source this foremost from the Minister of Legal Affairs.
After all, why have a Minister of Legal Affairs if he is not going to be the government’s principal source of legal advice? But does this mean that the President is constrained from seeking legal advice elsewhere.
The President may open himself up to criticism, including criticisms about a lack of confidence in his Minister of Legal Affairs if he seeks advice outside. On the other hand, there is nothing in the law preventing the President from seeking legal advice from sources outside of his Cabinet, and from doing so consistently.
There may be questions if this “outside” advice or second opinion has to be paid for by the State. But on important matters there is absolutely nothing wrong with persons outside of the Ministry of Legal Affairs being asked to tender legal advice to the President or to the government.
Especially when it comes to important legal challenges, it is highly advisable for such second, third and fourth opinions to be sought from those learned in the issue area.
Law has many branches. There are specialists in the various branches of the law. Thus, if there is a constitutional issue that the President needs a second opinion on, he should seek out some of the better known constitutional experts and then compare these opinions with that which he is receiving from his principal legal adviser.
No President should confine himself to only receiving advice from one main source. The good leader should always be open to listening to diverse opinions and then act in his own deliberate judgment.
The President should seek different opinions and allow himself to be guided by those who in his judgment are the most cogent and persuasive. This is especially so on important legal issues such as the composition of parliamentary committees.
The President of Guyana obviously believed or was led to believe that the government had a case in respect to the composition of parliamentary committees. As such, a decision was taken to challenge the failure of parliament to abide by the principle of proportionality when it came to the composition of parliamentary committees.
The basis of the government case rested on application of the principle of proportionality to the composition of the committees. Those who felt otherwise rested their case on the constitutional dictate that parliament sets its own rules and that the constitution in fact speaks to this fact; proportionality on the other hand is applicable to the determination of the members of the House.
The Court has ruled against the government and a decision has been taken by the government to appeal this decision. It is the government’s right to do this as it is the right of all those who feel they have grounds for appeal in relation to the court ruling in the matter involving former Commissioner of Police, Henry Greene.
But before the government engages into what will again be protracted legal arguments, the President may wish to seek opinions from sources other than that which he has already received so as to assure himself that the government is on good grounds when it comes to this appeal. Certainly there can be no harm in doing this.
In fact we have all manner of legal experts around these days including some Peeping Toms who exhibit their legal learning. There are also politicians who are apt to argue their cases in the newspapers and letter columns but who do provide some interesting insights into the interpretation of legal principles. Non-government organizations are now chipping in and offering their perspectives, often from a legal standpoint. There is no shortage of legal advice.
Government, however, has to go the traditional route and ask learned counsels for their opinion on a matter. When these counsels lie outside of the State, it does provide a measure of independent legal advice.
The government has taken a decision to appeal an important decision of the courts. It is hoped that in making this decision, the government is simply not reacting to the fact that it lost the original case and is seeking to save face.
It is hoped that there is some solid basis for this appeal and that in arriving at this decision, the government and particularly the President would have benefitted from varying opinions on the question.

Latest News

THE WISDOM OF SEEKING SECOND AND THIRD OPINIONS

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Alarm in West Indies over radical two-division plan for Test cricket

After 18 years hiatus, West Indies arrive in...

Uniting through Futsal

Westside Golf Course Opens 2025 with $100K...

Hardaiow, Mahabeer cop best batter and bowler...

FL Sport extends support to Polly’s Nursery...

Features/Columnists

The Horse Racing Authority Bill will solve nothing!

Forget Begging Rich Nations: Caribbean Countries Should Act to Save Themselves

Guyanese at the movies

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

THE WISDOM OF SEEKING SECOND AND THIRD OPINIONS

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]