Latest update February 13th, 2025 8:56 AM
Oct 28, 2012 Letters
Dear Editor,
I refer to the concern expressed by Attorney-at-Law, Mr. Nigel Hughes and reported in your newspaper over the prolonged acting appointments of their Honours Justices Carl Singh and Ian Chang in the judicial offices of Chancellor and Chief Justice, respectively. Mr. Hughes’ comment echoed a similar concern by Mr. Teni Housty, a former President of the Guyana Bar Association.
I consider that it might be useful if I made a contribution on this matter. In the Constitutions of most of the CARICOM States and in some other Commonwealth countries, the Head of the Judiciary is appointed by the Head of State after consultation with the leader of the Opposition. This is the procedure specified in the Constitution of Guyana for the appointment of the Chancellor as the Head of the Judiciary in Guyana, and the Chief Justice as the most senior Judge of the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature.
During Mr. Burnham’s tenure of office as Head of State, the legal personalities appointed to the Office of Chancellor and Head of the Judiciary, and the Office of Chief Justice as nominees of the Prime Minister (and later President) were acknowledged legal luminaries, in first Chancellor and President of the Court of Appeal being Sir Kenneth Stoby, and Sir Harold Bollers as the Chief Justice of the High Court.
During the Constitutional review process which commenced after the PPP/C assumed office after the general elections in 1992, the proposal was made by the PNC/R (now in opposition) for a change in the procedure for the appointment of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice, respectively the requirement of agreement (not merely consultation) between the Head of State and the Leader of the Opposition was proposed by Mr. Robert Corbin the leader of the Opposition and was agreed by the National Assembly which had turned itself into a Constituent Assembly for the purpose of reforming the Constitution.
I am on record of having warned against the change in the procedure for the appointment of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice. I contended that if the requirement was agreement for the appointment of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice, the Constitution must contain provision for resolving the matter in the event of this being unattainable.
I proposed that there should be a reference to the National Assembly and a decision being made by not less than a two-thirds majority vote. This proposal was not favoured the argument advanced being that it might not be possible to obtain a 2/3 majority vote in the National Assembly.
In the end, the existing (revised) Constitution adopted in 2002 requires agreement to be reached by the President and the Leader of the Opposition for the substantive appointment of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice, respectively. It is to be noted that the revised Constitution of Guyana includes a provision (Article 232) which actually defines what is meant by “consultation” or “meaningful consultation”. This may have been inspired by the Constitution of Belize which contains a similar provision.
Brynmor T.I. Pollard, C.C.H.; S.C.
Feb 13, 2025
2025 CWI Regional 4-Day Championships Round 3… -GHE (1st innings 87-4) Blades 3-15 Kaieteur Sports-Guyana Harpy Eagles were put on the back-foot early thanks to rain, coupled with a fiery spell...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News-Later this year, you will arrive in Guyana as protectors of the integrity of our democracy.... more
Antiguan Barbudan Ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The upcoming election... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]