In a significant High Court ruling yesterday, Justice William Ramlal held that no person can hold the office of Chancellor and Chief Justice at the same time, and that the simultaneous holding of both offices is unconstitutional.
The ruling comes amid reports that the President and Opposition Leader have resumed talks on the appointments of a Chancellor of the Judiciary and members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
Since former Chancellor Justice Desiree Bernard resigned to take up the post of a judge on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in 2005, Chief Justice Carl Singh has acted as Chancellor of the Judiciary.
An application was filed in the High Court last year by the Committee for the Defence of the Constitution challenging the satisfactoriness of the Chief Justice holding the office or acting as Chancellor at the same time.
The committee comprising attorneys-at-law, Rex McKay SC; Miles Fitzpatrick SC; Keith Massiah SC; Nigel Hughes and Stephen Fraser sought a declaration that the appointment of the Chief Justice in April 2005, by the President to act as Chancellor of the Judiciary though constitutional at the time it was made has become unconstitutional by Justice Singh continuing to so act.
The committee also sought the determination of several questions including whether upon the true construction of Articles 123, 124 and 127 of the Constitution the Office of the Chancellor of the Judiciary and the Office of the Chief Justice of the Republic of Guyana are two separate and distinct offices to be held by different persons.
Senior Counsel Rex McKay in an affidavit filed in support of the application said the appointment of a Chancellor must be made in accordance with Article 127 (1) of the Constitution, which states: “The Chancellor and the Chief Justice shall each be appointed by the President, acting after obtaining the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition”.
McKay said he was advised by the Opposition Leader that he had met the President with a view to reaching agreement on the appointment of a Chancellor of the Judiciary, but no agreement was reached.
Attorney General Doodnauth Singh in an affidavit in answer, had said that the Constitution permitted for the Chief Justice to perform the functions of Chancellor, there being a vacancy and his having been so appointed to act by the President; and for the Chief Justice to act as Chancellor until such time as the latter position was filled, having been duly appointed by the President in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Meanwhile in a statement issued late last night the government said the ruling could and “may very well be challenged”.
The government said the ruling seemed “lacking, having failed to take into account, the constitutional silence on a time frame within which consultations between
