Latest update June 1st, 2026 12:37 AM
What motivated our lawmakers to change “consultation” to “agreement?”
DEAR EDITOR,
I read with interest the contribution made by my good friend, Bryn Pollard, CCH.,SC, in which he stated that he had advised the Guyana government about the problem which the country could encounter if the two major parties do not agree on the candidates for the appointment of Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice.
He suggested that the National Assembly, with no less than a two-thirds majority vote, should break the deadlock by making the appointments, but this suggestion was shot down on the ground that it was not possible to obtain a 2/3 majority in the National Assembly.
It was very unfortunate for our lawmakers to ignore the advice from one of the leading constitutional experts in the Caribbean, who served as Legal Advisor to Caricom for a number of years before his retirement.
Like my learned friends Nigel Hughes, and Teni Housty, former President of the Guyana Bar Association, I had written articles for Mr. Carl Singh and Mr. Ian Chang to be confirmed in their positions as Chancellor and Chief Justice respectively, since they have been acting for a very long time… more than five years.
I asked the question time and time again: what was operating in the minds of both the government and opposition politicians to change “consultation” to “agreement”, since it would be extremely difficult for the government and opposition to have the same choice for these two high and importance offices.
I was not aware that the motion for change was initiated by Robert Corbin, the leader of the opposition, and agreed by the National Assembly. It was one of the few occasions where a motion from the opposition was passed and one wonders what prompted the PPP/C administration to agree to such a change.
It baffles me why would Guyana change from the norm as in other Caribbean and Commonwealth countries.
I know that there was a reason why the Head of the Judiciary in Guyana was renamed Chancellor and not Chief Justice. It was because Forbes Burnham, then Prime Minister, was not in favour of the sitting Chief Justice, Sir Joseph A. Luckhoo to be the Head of the Judiciary and appointed Sir Kenneth Stoby, who was the Chief Justice of Barbados to be the President of the Court of Appeal and Chancellor of the Judiciary, with Sir Joseph remaining as Chief Justice, but in the No.2 position. Luckhoo did not stand for the humiliation and promptly left for Jamaica where he served in the Court of Appeal until he retired as President of the Court.
Now that the PNCR has a new leader and David Granger is the leader of the Opposition, I wonder if he was approached to support the amendment.
The PPP/C does not control the House, and can be outvoted by the combined opposition of APNU and the AFC, as was done before. Therefore, there should be more flexibility between the two major parties and differences should be ironed out in the best interest of the country. If President Ramotar is reluctant to approach Granger for a change, the Opposition leader should make the move to the President, since it was his predecessor who initiated the silly change.
Oscar Ramjeet
Guyana-born, former Solicitor General of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Belize
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.