Latest update March 25th, 2025 7:08 AM
Latest News
- Surinamese invest US$516M into country’s first oil project
- ExxonMobil impact study for Hammerhead project silent on likely explosion from new pipeline
- ‘A shocking breach’: Trump officials leak military attacks to The Atlantic
- Pensioner goes missing during creek outing at Kwakwani
- Cuban national jailed for entering Guyana illegally
Failing to understand the constitution
Dear Editor,
I refer to what Mr. Kowlesar Misir wrote (Stabroek News, 30th October, 2017) about a “collaborative approach” in the appointment of the GECOM Chairman.
I would have liked Mr. Misir to amplify what is the meaning of “a list of six persons not unacceptable to the President” in the content of a duty placed by the Constitution upon the Leader of the Opposition to submit names, ALL of which could qualify for appointment.
Mr. Misir posited that Article 161(2) of the Constitution “demands a collaborative approach”. Since therefore, Article 161(2) in stating “Provided that if the Leader of the Opposition fails to submit a list as provided for…” must not be read in the absence of that earlier part of the same Article 161(2) which states “…a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President submitted by the Leader of the Opposition…”,
I submit that Mr. Misir has failed to highlight that Article 161(2) thereby demands that the Leader of the Opposition submit a list that the President, in his own deliberate judgment, find acceptable.
This is indeed not an abuse nor was it intended to be since the drafters not only did not make it an obligation that the President MUST appoint a person from the list provided, but also gave the President the full prerogative to find the list unacceptable!
By violating this responsibility the Leader of the Opposition renders his entire list unacceptable not once, but thrice!
Just by way of example, Mr. Misir might have read the column “The Shah Report” (Georgetown, 29th October, 2017) where an Opposition Leader nominee made the self-explanatory remarks: “Guyana voted in 2015 to give presidential power to a man whom the US assessed to be an ‘anti-Indian racist…’”.
Would it have been fit and proper, in this context, for President Granger to appoint an avowed ‘Indian rights activist’?
I suppose if Mr. Granger had fallen for Mr. Jagdeo’s plot, the outcome would be seen as a “collaborative approach”.
But President Granger knew better, since he is the Leader of the entire Guyanese nation, not just of a particular ethnic section.
Yours faithfully,
Cynthia Rutherford
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Desecration, Disrespectful, and Disgraceful
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- The solemnity of Babu Jaan, a site meant to commemorate the life and legacy of Dr. Cheddi... more
The Caribbean: Destined to Grin and Bear the Consequences of Its Self-Created Vulnerabilities?
By Sir Ronald Sanders For decades, many Caribbean nations have grappled with dependence on a small number of powerful countries... more
Weekend Cartoon
