Where does the AFC stand?

May 06, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The AFC has some questions to answer. The answers to those questions go to the issue of whether it is being treated as a doormat by the APNU.
The AFC says that it has a solid relationship with the APNU. It is understandable that it will say this since it may not wish to give the impression that the marriage with the APNU is on the rocks. Things certainly are not rosy or cozy between the two since the AFC has established a committee to review the Cummingsburg Accord and to determine whether there are areas which need modification or strengthening.
Guyana is going down a slippery constitutional slope. Guyana is on a dangerous path. The AFC must therefore answer questions about its agreement with decisions and actions taken by the government since it will be held complicit in these actions as a member of the ruling coalition.
The government on Thursday appointed an acting Chairman of the Public Service Commission. The AFC must now indicate whether it was consulted on this measure and whether it was in agreement with this ‘appointment’.
The AFC must answer whether a vacancy for the Chairman of the Public Service Commission exists. As far as the facts go, the President had appointed a Tribunal to investigate whether the Chairman of the Commission should be removed from office. The work of that tribunal was interrupted by a court order which prevented the removal following a legal challenge from the incumbent head of the Commission. The only way a vacancy can exist is if the term of the Chairman has since expired.
If there is a vacancy for the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, the Constitution of Guyana provides for the Deputy Chairman to assume the position or for someone else in the Commission to be elected by the Commission. This is purely an internal matter for the Commission, not for the President.
The AFC, as a signatory to the Cummingsburg Accord must explain where its stands on this matter because it sure will be challenged in the Courts and it hard to see, high level experts or not, how this appointment can be lawfully defended as being proper.
Something is seriously going wrong in this country in terms of the interpretation of the Constitution. The AFC has enough legal minds within its leadership and membership to pronounce on these issues.
But assuming that the President was vested with the power to appoint an acting Chairperson, the AFC must now indicate whether, as a coalition partner, it was consulted on the appointment of a trade unionist to the position. This is not a criticism of the ability of anyone. It is an issue of a potential conflict of interest.
The Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) is the recognized bargaining union for public servants in Guyana. The Public Service Commission (PSC) is the constitutional body which is authorized to undertake the appointment, disciplining and dismissal of public servants. The GPSU will at some time or the other be required to challenge decisions concerning appointments, dismissals and disciplinary actions of the PSC. Does the AFC therefore feel that the union which holds the position of acting Chairperson would not be in a conflict of interest if it is required to challenge a decision made under the Chairmanship of its President?
The AFC must state whether, in fact, it feels there should be any role at all for a trade union representative from the GPSU on the PSC given that the GPSU is likely to be represented also on the Public Service Appellate Tribunal.
The AFC must state its commitment to the rule of law and whether its feels that the principles of constitutionality are being threatened by the recent ‘appointment’ when in fact the Constitutions speaks of election.
Is the AFC a party to these actions? Was it consulted? Is it in agreement?

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News