JUDGE ARIF BULKAN’S ALREADY ILLEGAL “APPOINTMENT” CREATES A BAD PRECEDENT

Feb 01, 2018 Letters

Dear Editor,
On the 17th of January 2018, Dr. Arif Bulkan was appointed by President David Granger as a temporary Justice of Appeal, albeit without the necessary recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), which expired on the 30th September 2017, or the consideration of more experienced lawyers.
Legally, with all due respect to the suitability of his investiture, or lack thereof, his selection is null and void, because the required advice of the Commission is lacking.
Moreover, even assuming that the expired JSC were to somehow claim he was “retroactively approved,” a recommendation of such dubious character cannot be binding on its successor, just as how the future agenda of a former president are not binding on his successors.
The relevant minutes of the JSC must therefore be made public— assuming they exist—especially given the magnitude of this national, legal issue. A dissatisfied litigant, or anyone interested in the rule of law and due process, can raise a meritorious argument that Judge Bulkan’s decisions are illegal, void and of no binding effect–a huge waste of taxpayer’s funds, and an unneeded blight on the Judiciary of Guyana.
Article 128 (1) of Guyana’s highest law mandates that Dr. Bulkan could only have been properly appointed, whether temporary, permanent or acting, by the President, but who must act in accordance with the advice of the Judicial Service Commission.
The President has therefore acted ultra vires, unilaterally, whimsically, capriciously, and/or beyond his powers and prerogatives enshrined in Guyana’s foremost law-the Constitution. Why a temporary appointment anyway? Was this done to solely enhance Bulkan’s resume, and not benefit Guyanese in any tangible way?
Indeed, this precedent may lead to further erosions of the rule of law and the troubling widening of the already unseemly magnitude of the President’s powers, not befitting the checks and balances required in maintaining a democracy, especially at a time when the key appointments of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice are under intense scrutiny.
It can also open the door for the present and future Presidents to unlawfully ignore and/or bypass the consent of the Opposition Leader in illegally and strategically filling these positions to secure favorable rulings in appellate cases via expeditious, unilateral political appointments to the highest Court of the land.
Valid questions have been raised concerning Bulkan’s lack of practical experience and competence at the defense bar, especially in civil law, which comprises at least 75% of the appellate issues an Appellate Judge will be confronted with.
Moreover, it is the nepotism and disqualifying disability of being the brother of the influential Cabinet Minister, Mr. Ronald Bulkan M.P. Minister of Communities, which creates an alarming and unwaiveable conflict of interest that will always raise the inevitable criticism that his future rulings were not biased in favor of the regime that appointed him. The appearance of justice will be irretrievably compromised.
Laurie Ganpat
Editor’s note: When this accusation was first made in these columns, immediately the Judicial Service Commission responded that had the individual made a check with the Secretary of the Commission, he would have learnt that the appointment was legal.
The comment is equally apt here. Justice Bulkan’s appointment was made by the Judicial Service Commission before its life ended on September 30, 2017. At issue was the fact that Justice Bulkan was in Trinidad so his actually swearing in had to await his arrival IN Guyana.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News