Latest update August 21st, 2026 10:20 AM
Latest News
- Govt. will seek expert advice on financing of future Exxon projects
- Canadian firm secures option to acquire 15,000 acres gold property in Reg. 1 from Russian company
- GPL cracks down on illegal power connections in Sophia
- Venezuelans and Cubans among deportees to Liberia under Trump deal, official says
- ‘Change your eating habits’ – Pres. Ali blames citizens lifestyle for rising cost of living
I support Mr. Ramjeet’s position
Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter in the Kaieteur News of Monday, February 17, 2014 under the caption, ‘On what basis did the Judicial Service Commission appoint Ravi Sukul?’ and signed by Oscar Ramjeet.
The issue is that there is no Judicial Service Commission which is operating. The Judicial Service Commission is supposed to be made up of the Chancellor (Ag), Chief Justice (Ag), Chairman of the Public Service Commission (Ag) and should have had a representative from the Bar Association and one other.
Neither of the two has been appointed, so the Judicial Service Commission is made up of three ex-officio members only, all of whom are acting.
Article 198 of the Constitution in brief provides for the least number of members required for a functioning Judicial Service Commission to be five and the most is six.
I would certainly wish to ask whether that is a proper constitution of the Judicial Service Commission and whether they are competent to appoint anyone. In the case of Mr. Rabi Sukul, despite opposition, it was recommended to His Excellency as a unanimous decision.
This matter was raised before and it was confirmed that there was never any meeting of the Judicial Service Commission. Imagine that we have Judges within our system who would seek to be elevated from the Supreme Court of Judicature to the Appeal Court. Instead as pointed out by Mr. Ramjeet, Mr. Sukul has never been a Magistrate, a Judge, and is an unknown quantity in Guyana.
I support Mr. Ramjeet’s position that “those who advocated his appointment should hang their heads in shame”. It amounts to a violation of the Constitution. What is amazing is that the present Bar Association would not come to the defence of our Judges to question such an appointment.
I note that Mr. Christopher Ram is calling for a Presidential Inquiry. This is certainly a grave embarrassment to the parties involved and they should be dealt with for this violation in appointing Mr. Sukul for such a position.
Narine Rampersaud
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.