Appeal Court upholds President’s appointment of GECOM Chairman

Oct 19, 2018 News

The Court of Appeal has upheld President David Granger‘s decision to unilaterally appoint retired Justice James Patterson to the office of Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission, (GECOM) as constitutional.
The unanimous decision was handed down yesterday by Appeal Court Justices Chancellor Yonette Cummings – Edwards, Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory. Following the decision, Attorney at Law Anil Nandlall indicated his intention to appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice,(CCJ)

GECOM Chairman, Justice James Patterson

In her ruling Justice Dawn Gregory noted that process prior to the appointment of the GECOM Chairman by President Granger there should have involved more consultation and consensus rather than the supplying of 18 nominees from three lists of six names. These were eventually rejected by President Granger.
According to Justice Gregory the mere submission of a list did not mean the President should pick one of the nominees even after a prolonged period of eight months.
“The submission of a list, never mind 18 names and three lists, but without the engagement on their acceptability, separate from the choice, could not have led to a consensual candidate,” she said.
The Judge noted, too, that the President could not have been expected to make a choice without some discussion on the potential candidates, their qualifications and other pertinent characteristics.
She essentially stressed that it is for the President to determine who is fit and proper for the position from the list of nominees supplied by the Opposition Leader.
The judge stressed, too, that while the proviso rule in Article 161 (2) of the constitution is not ideal, President Granger resorted to the provision in the interest of the public.
“If he finds therefore that none of the lists are acceptable …he has the right to appoint one whom he finds suitable. Therefore a resort to the proviso was not lawful and unconstitutional. “
In upholding the decision of the Chief Justice, Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Cummings-Edwards said that the Proviso rule in Article 161 (2) of the constitution should have been enacted earlier; after he rejected the first list.
Although she agreed with some of the submissions presented by attorney Anil Nandlall, the Chancellor noted that under Article 161 (2) of the Constitution, that Granger has the right to appoint a GECOM Chairman.
Similarly, Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud said there was nothing to suggest that the President acted unconstitutionally, illegally or unreasonably in appointing Justice James Patterson.
The President could not be forced to choose from a list because that could lead to an “unreasonable fettering of his discretion”.
“That could possibly lend itself to politicking, abuse by one …Again such an interpretation may also attempt to elevate the Leader of the Opposition to a position over and above the norms associated with his authority,” Justice Persaud added.
In June Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George ruled that the President acted lawfully when he unilaterally appointed Justice Patterson as Chairman of GECOM.
The appeal was filed by People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Member of Parliament Zulfikar Mustapha.
On Tuesday, the powers of the President were the source of contention among the lawyers from both the State and the PPP.