Non-appointment of Chancellor and Chief Justice - a malodorous judicial reality

Non-appointment of Chancellor and Chief Justice – a malodorous judicial reality

Apr 13, 2022 Letters

Dear Editor,

“I have a right and a duty publicly to express the view that Guyana should not let this year pass and not remedy this regrettable situation.” Those words were articulated by the esteemed President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders, as quoted from the articles titled, “Time to appoint Chancellor, Chief Justice -CCJ President” (KN April 12) and “CCJ President calls for substantive appointment of Chancellor, CJ before end of the year” (SN April 12), and I grapple with what rights remain in this country for people like me, but I do know what my duty is, and I share a little morsel of it today.

For any officer in any position – public or private – to be acting beyond a year indicates much that is wrong. He or she is either incompetent or questionable as to work ethic and reliability, or suspect regarding character, or some combination of all those elements, with others left unmentioned. In sum, it is generally what Guyanese would usually term a ‘caan help’ situation. I picked acting for a year arbitrarily, because it could be much less, as circumstances dictate. This is for any job held in an acting capacity by anyone in any place. The holder is either up to scratch or is not. In the instance of the former, confirmation should follow; in the latter, return to prior position or, in worse case scenarios, demote or terminate.

Now when the job (in this instance two positions) involves the nation’s judiciary, and the pinnacle of it, then what we have for years – acting appointments – degrade to the gutter of repugnance. Whither confidence in the system? What trust does this repose or convey about those performing in the holding pattern of acting capacities for what is an eternity? What other uneasy and unsaid questions at high levels about these two female judicial actors swirl and why? What does it do for the conjectures of watching citizens, where does it leave them?

When women are in the mix, and the colour line is introduced, what we have, and those acting live with, is the daily degradation of the offices they hold and injury to themselves. To this I note that when our brutal political prejudices, passions, suspicions, and speculations wend their way, and are all fused, to what is now a malodorous judicial reality, then we exist with what is this hideously rancid and putrid injustice. It is of our ugly, twisted, savaging politics gripping our judiciary in a vise, and squeezing out any respect and dignity that it once had.

Speaking solely for myself, I would be less than human if I did not ponder what issues there could be about their wisdom, their intellect, their judicial acumen, and their judgment, given what they have been compelled to endure. I certainly have no issues with both of these senior officers of the law, and this is based purely on trust, and the record of what I assess to be their neutrality and independence, their strengths, perseverance, and abiding dignified presences, notwithstanding the humiliating national and regional ordeals that they have been their shabby and sordid lot. What has been inflicted upon these two women by our political leaders expose the latter for the closet bigots they are, the monstrous partisans they are, and also possibly the impotent male chauvinist pigs that they are.

As a Guyanese I am embarrassed; as an onlooker, I am appalled and disgusted. In closing, I quickly note three areas in which I part company with the sagacious CCJ President. First, since these two acting situations have gone on for so long, there ought not to be the rest of this year to close this out, one way or another. A month is too short, with some formula or secret sauce making the rounds, and more than a quarter would be too long. This should, must, be over by midyear. To extend this more would be piling abomination of a cardinal kind upon execration. The second point of difference with President Saunders is when he surveyed Guyana’s judicial landscape and saw it fit to employ mere “blot” to describe what is present. No matter how significant that blot is, it does not exist in singular number in the local realm. And third, regarding the judicial record that he lauded, it is less than impressive, with credibility in short supply, thanks to individual weaknesses, and political machinations and other wizardries.

Sincerely,

GHK Lall

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News