Latest update April 15th, 2025 7:12 AM
Latest News
- 7th oil project likely to cause higher cost-of-living for Guyanese – Exxon study reveals
- ‘Apologise and retract false statements or face litigation’ – Former GECOM Legal Officer tells Chair and CEO
- Conditions at Gaza hospitals ‘beyond description’ after Israeli attacks -WHO
- Teen arrested in connection with murder at Melanie
- Man pretending to be Housing Minister’s father charged with obtaining money by false pretense
Nomination of CJ…Consultation between President, Opp. Leader was not meaningful- Ramkarran
– consultation must be reviewed
Former Speaker of the House, Ralph Ramkarran, has called for a review of the method of Presidential consultation employed in Guyana, stating that recent events had raised questions about its effectiveness.
His comments came in light of the appointment of the (ag) Chief Justice, Yonette Cummings-Edwards. During the consultation, concerns had been raised about a request from Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo for information on the nominee.
“It is not known if any past President received or sought professional advice on consultation,” Ramkarran said. “If not, now is the time to do so and to bring the fifty year old, unconstitutional, method of presidential consultation, hitherto practiced by both parties, to an end.”
He stated that during the consultation between President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo on the appointment of an acting Chief Justice, it had been reported that Jagdeo had asked for an assessment from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
The assessment, it is understood, had been of the performance of the President’s nominee based on some specific criteria. It was reported that the information was not provided. Afterwards, Jagdeo had stated that an objective report should have been solicited from the JSC.
Former Speaker of the House, Ralph Ramkarran
Chief Justice (ag), Yonette Cummings-Edwards
The criteria, he had said, should have been about the performance of that person in office, the number of cases, how many decisions were written, outstanding works issued and disciplinary issues.
He also noted that he is not sure if Government took these factors into consideration when they nominated Justice Cummings-Edwards.
“The appointment, even though an acting one, required meaningful consultation,” Ramkarran said. “The nature and quality of the consultation between President Granger and Jagdeo, which were suggested by press reports, is a far cry from what it ought to have been on the basis of established legal authority.”
According to Ramkarran, case law in England (a model used locally or regionally in certain instances) overwhelmingly establishes that consultation must be fair.
“The elements of fairness in consultation were advanced by the then Stephen Sedley Q.C. (later Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Stephen Sedley Q.C. ret.), in a case in which he appeared as counsel in 1985 (R v Brent LBC ex p. Gunning 1985 84 LGR 168).”
“These later became known as the Sedley principles on consultation and were upheld in several later cases in the UK Court of Appeal. The principles are the consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage (and) the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response.”
The third principle, he noted was that adequate time must be given for consideration and response. Ramkarran stated that the fourth principle should be for the product of consultation to be taken into account when finalizing the decision.
“It must go without saying that to achieve consultation, sufficient information must be supplied by the consulting party to the consulted party to enable it to tender helpful advice,” Ramkarran expounded. “Sufficient time must be given by the consulting to the consulted party to enable it to do that, and sufficient time must be available for such advice to be considered by the consulting party.”
“At minimum, under the Reg. v Social Service Secretary case, Jagdeo was entitled to the information he sought and time to consider it,” he stated. “By virtue of the Moseley case, he was entitled to be told if the President considered any other qualified nominee, and if not, why not, and if he did, why did he reject him or her. In so far as these did not occur, the constitution was violated.”
On December 9, President Granger had met with the Leader of the Opposition at the Ministry of the Presidency to consult and determine the Judge who would be appointed to perform the functions of the Office of the Chief Justice, when Justice Ian Chang proceeded on leave.
At the meeting, the President had nominated Cummings, a Justice of Appeal, primarily on the considerations that she is a woman with years of experience as a Puisne Judge of the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature, a Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal, her competency and professionalism.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Of Silk and Steel
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- By the time the first container ship from China—the Liu Lin Hai—steamed into a port... more
Collaborative Government–Private Sector Action Imperative for a Resilient Trade Future
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- On April 9, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 90-day suspension of the higher... more
Weekend Cartoon
