More questions than answers

Nov 17, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

If the Leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC) says that he was summoned to an urgent meeting on October 19, 2017 and informed of the President’s decision regarding the appointment of Justice James Patterson as Chairman of GECOM, then the Leader must be taken at his word.
The question that people are asking is after being told of the intention of the President to appoint Justice James Patterson, what did the Leader of the AFC say? Did he express any reservations or objections to the manner in which the President went about this decision?
Did the Leader of the AFC protest the lack of consultation with his party on the appointment of Justice Patterson? Did he say to the President that this was not how the AFC presumed that the decision would have been made? Did he press home a case for the need for consultations with the AFC on this issue seeing that it is a major coalition partner?
Did he ask why the matter was not brought to Cabinet? Did he expect that it would have been raised in Cabinet? Did he express any position on the unilateral appointment? Or was he in agreement that no fit and proper person appeared on the third list of names submitted by the Leader of the Opposition? And did he ask about the mechanism that the parties had agreed to establish should no suitable person be found on the third list? Did he question the breach of this commitment?
Just what was the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition when he was told that Justice Patterson was the intended person to be appointed as Chairman of GECOM?
Did the Leader of the AFC subsequently sit in at a meeting between the President and the Leader of the Opposition at which the President would have communicated his decision? And what was the signal that the Leader of the AFC believed would have been sent by his presence at that meeting, if indeed he was at that meeting?
Did he feel that it could have been interpreted as the AFC being in support of the President’s decision, even though the AFC is on record as saying that it was not consulted in the decision?
Would it not have been better, in the circumstances, for the AFC leader to not have been at any meeting at which the President’s decision was communicated to the Leader of the Opposition, lest it be concluded that his presence there signaled his agreement with the choice being made and the process at arriving at that choice?
The issue at stake is therefore not whether the AFC was part of any decision. The AFC has said it was not consulted. APNU has not contradicted this position. There is no evidence to conclude that the AFC was part of any decision.
The issue at stake is if the Leader of the AFC was part of the meeting between the President and the Leader of the Opposition, and if so, what does this presence signify? Does it signify agreement? Or was it a mere courtesy that the Leader of the AFC sat in at the meeting, if indeed he did.
The constitutionality of the decision by the President will be decided by the Court. This column will offer no view on this aspect. It will, however, argue that there are political implications involved in terms of the presence or lack thereof, of the Leader of the AFC at any meeting at which the President would have advised the Leader of the Opposition of his choice.
The AFC has some serious questions to answer about where it stands in the coalition. Is it still part of the coalition or is it now part of APNU, as some are suggesting? Is the Cummingsburg Accord still in force and how is it being operationalized? What about the review of that Accord? When will that take place? What is the AFC’s position now on shared governance? Is this completely off the bargaining table?
There are more questions than answers.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News