Nothing surreptitious about retirement

Nov 04, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – In a society where speculation too often substitutes for analysis, it is unsurprising that the lawful retirement of the Acting Chancellor has been repackaged by some as a “surreptitious removal.” But when examined with a clear head and a firm grasp of the facts, that claim collapses under the weight of its own exaggeration.

To begin with, there was nothing “hidden” about the Chancellor’s departure. She has indicated that she will be proceeding on pre-retirement leave. When that leave ends, the retirement will therefore begin.

Pre-retirement leave is not dismissal; it is a bridge between active service and retirement. Leave earned should be awarded, not lost upon retirement. How pre-retirement leave can be interpreted as “removal” is therefore a linguistic and logical stretch.

The constitutional process for appointing or substituting a Chancellor or Chief Justice when the office is vacant or its occupant is unable to perform the functions is clearly set out in Article 127(2). It is a mechanism for stability, not manipulation. It ensures that, even in the absence of a substantive appointment, the work of the judiciary continues uninterrupted. When the Acting Chancellor indicated that she would be proceeding on leave, another senior judge was designated to perform the functions of Chancellor. That is exactly how the system is meant to work — and how it has worked in the past.

What some have chosen to interpret as “musical chairs” is, in fact, institutional order. Acting appointments, by definition, are temporary. They end either when a substantive appointment is made or when the person acting demits office — through resignation, retirement, or leave. This was neither a demotion nor a dismissal. It was the natural and expected consequence of the Acting Chancellor’s own decision to step back from duty.

There is no evidence in the public domain that the incumbent was pressured to retire. Therefore, the suggestion that the Executive sought to “manipulate” the judiciary or “erode confidence” in the courts is misplaced.

The judiciary in Guyana remains constitutionally independent. Judges are not answerable to politicians; they are guided by the law, precedent, and conscience. That independence is not compromised merely because an acting appointment ends or another begins.

It is worth recalling that both the Acting Chancellor and Acting Chief Justice were originally appointed in 2017 through a constitutional process, following consultation between then President David Granger and then Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo. Nobody then cried “interference” or “removal.” The same rules apply today, the only difference being that the personalities have changed.

One must ask: how does a voluntary and lawful transition suddenly become an act of political treachery? There has been no evidence — none whatsoever — that the President or any other official acted outside the law. Nor has there been any indication that the outgoing Chancellor objected to her leave or was denied any entitlement.

Calls to “backdate” her appointment as substantive Chancellor are emotionally appealing but legally unsound. Acting appointments do not retroactively transform into substantive ones. A person either holds the substantive title or does not. To pretend otherwise is to rewrite the record and to misunderstand how judicial appointments function within a constitutional democracy.

The narrative that this event signals the “corruption” of the judiciary is therefore both cynical and damaging. The true danger lies not in the transition itself, but in the ease with which ordinary administrative processes can be distorted into political drama.

In any serious democracy, judicial independence depends on two things: adherence to procedure and respect for truth. In this case, both were observed. The Acting Chancellor’s departure followed established norms. Her successor’s appointment followed the constitutional formula. The judiciary continues its work, unaffected by the noise outside its chambers.

Guyana’s courts have faced many real challenges — backlogs, resource shortages, and the need for permanent appointments to top judicial offices. But the routine pre-retirement of an acting officer is not among them. To label it “surreptitious” is to confuse transition with conspiracy.

The independence of the judiciary is not shaken by a judge’s retirement; it is shaken when facts are twisted to serve political narratives. Those who truly value the rule of law should defend its processes, not distort them for effect. The Acting Chancellor served with distinction and left honorably. That should be the story — not imagined intrigue.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• Acting Chancellor, Peeping Tom, removal, retirement, surreptitious

---