President Granger rejection of the 3 lists was a charade

Oct 24, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Undoubtedly, it must be submitted that the unilateral selection of the Chairman of GEOCOM was well orchestrated and did not arise because the three (3) lists submitted by the leader of the Opposition were unacceptable. This can be discerned from the train of event which followed the first list and which made the current imbroglio unavoidable.
The following interpretation of Article 161(2) was taken from the GECOM website:
“The Chairman shall be a person who holds, has held or is qualified to hold the office of Judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal or any other fit and proper person who is appointed from a list of six persons, who are not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition after he has meaningfully consulted with the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly. If the Leader of the Opposition does not submit such a list of persons then the President shall appoint a person who holds, has held or is qualified to hold the office of Judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal. The current Chairman of the Commission was chosen by the President from a list of six persons submitted by the Leader of the Opposition.” (http://www.gecom.org.gy/elections_commission.html). This is a simple and literal interpretation of Article 161(2).
This is literally clear and unambiguous Article and the Chief Justice ruling made it clear that the arguments of the Attorneys on behalf of President Granger’s case was ‘irrational’, that is to say ‘without logical reasoning’. She made it clear that there are four (4) categories of persons: judge, former judge, someone eligible to be a judge and any other fit and proper person and no one category is mandatory.
She further said that it would not be unreasonable for the President to provide reasons for rejecting the nominees presented by the Leader of the Opposition. She knew that in the interest of preserving Article 161(2) that this explanation is an essentially vital corollary.
Immediately after the CJ’s ruling, the President made it clear that he ‘will continue to act in accordance with his perception of the Constitution and will not appoint anyone whom he considers not to be fit and proper. He intentionally saw the fourth category as attributes of the other three categories. It became clear at that point that he was not going to recognise the fourth category and based his unilaterally selection of the Chairman of GECOM solely on the suspended Article 161 of the 1980 Constitution which only recognised the first three categories.
The Constitution (Amendment) Act 1995 (Act N. 15 of 1995) made Article 161(2) the criteria for the selection of the Chairman embodying the Carter formula. This made it pellucid that it is no longer the prerogative of the President to unilaterally select the Chairman, he must choose from the list submitted from the Leader of the Opposition and he has four categories to choose from. It must be noted that the President began by following the Carter formula but after the submission of three lists he suddenly reverted to the suspended Article which is no longer legally valid. Was this not intentional?
It must be recalled that the amendment of the Constitution incorporated the Carter formula which was win after a long and arduous battle by the democratic forces for free and fair election in Guyana. While the Carter formula may not be perfect, it is still the best means available to select an impartial Chairman. We cannot revert to the pre-1992 era, when the Chairman was selected by the President only. We have witnessed election after election being rigged by the PNC.
Therefore, it is now the consensus that the selection of Justice Patterson can be seen as biased as well as unconstitutional and therefore null and void since Article 161(2) made it clear it is only if the Leader of the Opposition fails to submit a list that the President can unilaterally select a Chairman. This unilateral selection is indeed against the letter, spirit and intent of the Constitution.
It must be concluded that it is most difficult to accept that the President was ever serious about Jagdeo’s lists. There were 18 names from the three lists and one name could have been selected. There can be found at least one such person from each list and this is why the Chief Justice had ruled the reasons should have been given. There definitely is a need to understand the mind-set of the President. It was indeed a time-consuming charade into futility but one which will most definitely destroy the pillars of democracy and once again hopelessly divide this Nation. It is indeed a dark day for Guyana when the supreme law of the land and a Chief Justice’s ruling can be so flippantly ignored.
Haseef Yusuf
RDC Councillor-Region 6

---

---