My opinion on the GECOM Chairman appointment

Oct 08, 2018 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

I asked three lawyers and two retired judges a few days ago if I could write an opinion on the appointment of a GECOM Chairman outside of the Carter formula while the Court of Appeal case was taking place. All five persons said it depends on what you put in the article. All five legal minds told me it is a fallacy that commentators cannot write on ongoing court cases.
They all echoed the same sentiments – it comes down to what you put in the column. I had an interesting lecture on the law. I was instructed that you cannot offer words of disagreement or approval on points of law as pronounced by the judge(s) while the proceeding are talking place in Commonwealth countries though no such restrictions apply in the US.
My question to all five legal minds is, when a trial is taking place could you offer an opinion on the action itself that triggered the case. Again, I was told it depends on what the writ is all about. I was advised that a newspaper should stay far away from any remote comment on why a person filed a writ of libel against another during the trial.
One judge gave me an example. If you write that a minister is incompetent and he sues, before the trial begins any commentator could say that they do not believe in law that characterization of a minister as incompetent constitutes contempt of court. It is when the trial begins that you have to be careful.
I then brought up the question (I spent two days last week speaking to them on different occasions) if a commentator can offer his/her take on the legal soundness on President Granger’s appointment of the GECOM Chairman while the Court of Appeal is hearing the matter from the lower court .
Believe it or leave all five legal minds gave the same answer and it is an interesting one. They said a citizen is entitled at anytime to offer an opinion on the actions of the head of state, acting in his /her capacity as head of state on any matter because the decisions of the head of state are matters of public interest and matters of national interest.
One of the lawyers gave an absorbing example. The President orders the birth of a state owned airline to do commercial flights. A private airline sues and says the state becomes an advantageous competitor and it is a violation of natural law. The lawyer said at anytime, trial or no trial, a citizen can write and opine that the state should not compete with private commercial airlines.
Finally, I asked all of them if I could give my opinion on the legal correctness of Granger’s GECOM appointment of Justice Patterson while the higher court is hearing the appeal.
Believe it or leave all five legal minds said to me, you are entitled to comment, using respectful language, on what your head of state does, just write on that and do not make any reference to what is taking place in court.
For safety, and wanting to avoid bad luck, I waited until the proceedings concluded. Here now is my take on reading the constitution. I read the constitution last year and concluded that a GECOM Chairman does not have to be a judge or former judge or someone whose qualities must be similar to a judge. I went over and over the constitution last week and here is my interpretation.
I believe the constitution does not allow for the president to make a unilateral appointment of the GECOM chairman. It seems to my mind, the framers explicitly wanted to avoid that. The complex wording revolves around the issue as to if the president can do so if he does not approve of the choices of the Opposition Leaders.
But the framers could not have been so shortsighted. If the president has his own pick in waiting, then he could easily say he does not approve of the choices of the Opposition Leader if the latter produces a hundred lists.
I’m afraid there is no complexity at all in the constitution. I went over and over it, even late one night and I most definitely believe the framers wanted a consensus formula where the Opposition gives or offers names, president chooses from the names. They did not allow the president latitude to make his own appointment because they wanted a consensus model. If not the language would have been clear and unambiguous that he has a right to make his own appointment. The constitution does not give him that latitude.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News