POLITICIZING JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

May 21, 2018 Editorial

Judges and magistrates do not often make the headlines in the news unless their decisions are the subject of news stories or usually when they are controversial when there are disagreements with a decision.
The judiciary has always remained a relatively silent group that keeps presses on with dispensing cases no matter what is happening in the society. In recent times, however, the judiciary has been the subject of much political tussle by both the Government and the Opposition over the nomination of a Chancellor and a Chief Justice.
President Granger’s nomination of Guyanese-born Chief Justice of Belize, Kenneth Thompson as the Chancellor of the Judiciary and Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards as Chief Justice has been opposed by the Opposition leader. At present, Justice Cummings-Edwards is the acting Chancellor and Justice Roxane George (SC) is the acting Chief Justice. Both were appointed a year ago as part of a temporary arrangement between the President and the leader of the opposition.
They replaced Justices Carl Singh and Ian Chang, both retired without being substantively appointed Chancellor and Chief Justice, respectively. It shows that while in office, the PPP governed in the interests of its supporters only. It took actions that were not right and responsible; ones that violated the fundamental rights of its opponents and the rule of law, which is the basis for order in society.
The Opposition has politicized the appointment of the two top judicial posts to score cheap political points. Despite his rejection of the two nominees, Jagdeo has stated that he expects the persons appointed to the positions to be confirmed in order to give them security of tenure to ensure that they are independent and are not susceptible to political influence.
However, for the leader of the Opposition to pronounce on tenure for the jurists is hypocritical. Lest we forget, under the PPP Justices Carl Singh and Ian Chang retired without being confirmed to their respective substantive positions.
That said, President Granger has made it clear that even though the constitution provides for meaningful consultation with the leader of the Opposition on the appointment of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice, the final decision is his. Therefore, Jagdeo’s rejection of the two candidates will not derail the appointments.
The outcry by the Opposition leader has been loud but it appears not to change the mind of the President. However, the perceived untidiness of the situation has exposed to the public some potential flaws in our current three-pronged structure of governance.
Guyana still maintains the parliamentary Westminster tripartite model of governance; the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the State. Each has its areas of responsibility and each is supposed to serve as a check and balance against one another, at least in theory.
In our democratic system, the people constitute the final authority to elect representatives to the legislature, although politicians often seem to forget that, except at election time. But the executive has the responsibility of selecting key personnel to governance, including the Chief Justice and the Chancellor.
Nonetheless, responsibility without the commensurate authority will have expectations that cannot be realized. But there are some nuisances inherent in our political system that should be explained. The citizens of Guyana elect representatives to serve them and to manage the affairs of the state. It cannot be that everyone should have equal responsible with equal authority.
The opposition can have differences in responsibility, but ultimate authority resides in the President, who on behalf of the people; bears ultimate responsibility for every government function or action.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News