Challenge to GECOM chair’s appointment…PPP reiterates call to CCJ for early hearing

Mar 19, 2019 News

Former Attorney General and People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Member of Parliament Anil Nandlall, met with officials of the Registry of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to urge an early hearing of an appeal filed in relation to the unilateral appointment of Justice (Ret’d) James Patterson as Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).

PPP MP, Attorney-at-law Anil Nandlall

Nandlall paid a visit to the court last week where he was informed that his concerns and apprehensions will be conveyed earliest to the court’s president, Honourable Mr. Justice Adrian Saunders.
According to Nandlall, “The early hearing and determination of this appeal is an important component of the struggle for democracy and constitutionalism ongoing in the country.”
The PPP had earlier this year filed an application with the court requesting an early hearing.
Last October, the Court of Appeal upheld President David Granger’s decision to unilaterally appoint Patterson, saying it was in accordance with the Constitution.
The decision was unanimous and was made by Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings – Edwards and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory.
Justice Gregory, in her ruling, noted that in the 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 the President.
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.

Retired Justice James Patterson receives his instrument of appointment from President David Granger at his swearing-in

“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 also stressed 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 Nandlall, the Chancellor noted that under Article 161 (2) of the Constitution, President Granger has the right to appoint a GECOM Chairman.
Similarly, Justice 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 of last year, Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George ruled that the President acted lawfully when he unilaterally appointed Justice Patterson as Chairman of GECOM. As a result, PPP Member of Parliament Zulfikar Mustapha filed an appeal against Justice George’s decision with the Court of Appeal. After that Court’s ruling, another appeal was filed with the CCJ.