The Constitution’s intention, the judge’s decision

-The USA’s President Trump, GECOM’s Chairman Patterson

-Black Germans, Afro Swiss

If, like me, you’re a mere mortal of a layman often befuddled by the law, the concept of justice and many conclusions by legally-trained arbiters, read and consider my opinion relevant to the appointment of the Head of our national Elections Commission.

Now many countries’ constitutions are documents that are aspirational. They aspire to engender idealistic guidelines to promote desirable national behaviours and standards. Of course a constitution is often described as a nation’s “supreme law” from which other statutes flow. However, quite often the rights and freedom (for example) prescribed and “guaranteed” are hardly attainable, elusive in the real society. Even constitutional lawyers are left to discuss or promote the spirit of the constitution – the   essence or intention of what should be.

The foregoing is just my background within which to record my own opinion – shared, I know by many – that President Granger was palpably incorrect when he manipulated the constitution’s article which defined all who could be eligible to be appointed as the Elections Commission chairperson. His Excellency coined his own fit–and-proper definition to mean judges or legal minds only and exclusively…..