After the damage has been done

Jul 26, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Nothing better exemplifies the incompetence of the government’s public relations than the statement which it issued on July 22, 2017, attempting to refute the assertion that the President rejected the interpretation by Chief Justice (ag.) Roxanne George, of Article 161 (2) of the Constitution of Guyana.
The release began by stating that the Ministry of the Presidency refuted the assertion that the President had rejected the ruling. But then it goes on, in the same paragraph, to contradict its own statement when it said that any commentary to the contrary is a deliberate misrepresentation. This means that it is saying that any commentary contrary to the view that the President has rejected the ruling was a misrepresentation.
The release from the Ministry of the Presidency goes on to state that what the President said is that he will continue (emphasis mine) to act in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. But does not the ruling of the Chief Justice actually reject the President’s interpretation of the Constitution?
This entire imbroglio was created when the President sought to suggest that any ‘fit and proper’ person must be a former judge. The Chief Justice (ag.) has rejected that such a qualification exists.
The position of the President was later qualified to read that a non-judge may be selected as a fit and proper person, but that preference has to be given to a judge, and that the person selected must have qualities including that of intelligence, impartiality and independence.
The President therefore cannot continue to act as he has been acting, because the Court has rejected two of the principal grounds on which he was acting, namely, that the person has to be a judge or that preference should be given to a judge.
The release instead of clarifying just what the President means when he says he will continue to act in accordance with the Constitution goes on, instead, to quote the President as saying that “I will continue to act within my perception of the Constitution, that is to say, that I will not appoint somebody that I do not consider fit and proper.”
The President’s prerogative to appoint someone he considers ‘fit and proper’ was never in question. In the final analysis, it is the President who has to choose someone whom he considers as ‘fit and proper’. However, he cannot disqualify non- judges from consideration.
The release, ill-advisedly, goes on to state that the Chief Justice’s ruling is based on her perception of Article 161(2). When a court rules, it is not ruling on the perception of the judge. It is a definitive interpretation of the law. The issue of the judge’s perception is a misnomer. There is no perception. Until overturned by a higher court, the judge’s ruling stands and must be complied with.
But APNU has a history of trying to disregard court rulings as it did, for example, with the ruling on whether the opposition could have cut the Budget Estimates. It is an insult to the Chief Justice to say that she ruled in accordance with her perception of Article 161(2). She ruled and her ruling stands, until overturned, as the definitive interpretation of the law. There is no perception here.
The President’s words in response to the ruling may have been poorly chosen. That is human. His words may have led to an interpretation which he did not intend. This is also human. When it was clear that the choice of words was going to interpreted in the way that it was, the Ministry of the Presidency should have immediately issued a clarification that the President in no way intended to suggest that he was not going to act in accordance with the ruling. Instead the PR personnel of the Ministry of the Presidency allowed this issue to fester, until persons and organizations began to express alarm over what the President said. The President’s PR people were not on the ball and this led to this hubbub.
It just goes to underscore the point, which has been made from a number of quarters, that the PR machinery of the Presidency needs revamping. It is too reactive. It is in response mode, and in so doing is merely doing damage control. It needs to be more proactive.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News