Jagdeo is walking into a trap

Jan 01, 2018 News

The Leader of the Opposition has made a gross miscalculation. He has reportedly accepted an invitation to attend a consultation with the President on Wednesday.
Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, by accepting that invitation, has stepped into a booby trap. He has played right into the President’s hands.
The consultation is likely to be about the appointment of the Chancellor of the Judiciary. The Leader of the Opposition should not be part of any process which was preceded by an unconstitutional act.
The government earlier last year (2017) established a search committee to nominate persons for the positions of Chancellor and Chief Justice. After a committee, determined exclusively by the President, was appointed, persons were encouraged to apply to an email address at the Ministry of the Presidency.
This is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers. The judiciary enjoys independence from the Executive arm of the state. The Executive arm of the state should play no role in any application process. The appointment of the committee and the invitation for persons to apply were both unconstitutional.
The Leader of the Opposition by agreeing to meet with the President on this issue is unwittingly lending credibility to these unconstitutional practices. He should not be part of any consultation which will deal with any recommendation coming from the search committee.
What happens if some judges, eligible to be both Chief Justice and Chancellor, had refused to submit themselves to examination by the search committee, a creature of the Executive? It means that they would not have been considered for appointment. They would have been disenfranchised.
The process began by President Granger is unconstitutional and should be challenged. The consultation however is not the forum for the Leader of the Opposition to challenge the constitutionality of the appointment of the search committee or the invitation for persons to apply to an email address linked to the Ministry of the Presidency.
The President can introduce any system he wants to help him decide who he feels is best suited to be Chancellor and Chief Justice. But he must act within the confines of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not grant him licence to ask persons to apply to an Executive search committee at an email address used by his Ministry. The President is once again in violation of the Constitution.
The Leader of the Opposition should avoid being contaminated by this unconstitutional virus. He should have advised the President that he does not wish to be entrapped in a process which is likely to be challenged as unconstitutional.
The issue is the process and not the persons. The issue is not who should be appointed as Chancellor or Chief Justice. The Constitution provides for agreement between the Leader of the Opposition and the President before such persons can be appointed. The problem is the process being used by the President which is a violation of the separation of powers and which is likely to be overturned by any credible judge.
The danger in this proposed consultation is that the Leader of the Opposition can find himself being forced to disagree with the President’s process. The President can, however, use this consultation to say that there is no agreement on the appointment, rather than no agreement on the process of a search committee.
Regardless of what Mr. Jagdeo says, the President can then use this consultation to say that since the positions of Chancellor and Chief Justice remain vacant and since he has consulted with the Leader of the Opposition, he is within his right to appoint someone to act as Chief Justice and Chancellor, notwithstanding the fact that two persons are already acting in the positions.
He can then appoint the acting Chancellor to act as the acting Chief Justice and appoint his nominee to act as Chancellor. In this way, he gets a de facto Chancellor. Granger is more than capable of pulling off such a stunt.
The Leader of the Opposition is walking into a trap by attending that meeting. He should cancel, launch a legal challenge against the constitutionality of the search committee and indicate that once this matter is resolved, he is prepared to hold consultations on the appointment of a Chancellor and Chief Justice.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News