Regular fans of this twenty-five year old man-in-the-street column have long appreciated that I know when not to enter debates about complex issues tending to be above my head and intellectual level. The recent Appeal Court decision regarding the correctness and legality of the appointment of His Excellency’s GECOM Chairman Patterson is one such matter. The learned Appeal Court Justices all found that His Excellency was within his constitutional right to select his chairman in the manner he – His Excellency- did.
Obviously, I – poor me – am certainly not versed in Criminal, Civil or Constitutional law. And – despite the opinion of a few – I’m no PPP/Jagdeo/Ramotar man. But, exercising my own constitutional right of free reasonable wholesome expression, I record boldly that I disagree with and regret the Appeal Court decision. Why!? Essentially because even my limited intellect knows that the constitution – its writers of that section – cries out for consensus. In that Article 161 (2) it is obvious, even to the intelligent layman, the intent, even the so-called “spirit”, is to ensure that the representative of the Opposition’s thousands of supporters contributes effectively to the choice of National Elections Chairman.
Now three local judicial minds have determined that His Excellency’s manoeuvres were proper and legal and his unilateral choice must stand. I don’t approve of the language the disappointed Dr Jagdeo used in the wake of the Appeal Court’s decision. I instead can tolerate Mr. Nandlall’s views and do really agree with the sentiments of Donald Rabindranath Ramotar who was briefly president. Which brings me now to more Ramotar, even as I was advised that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) would be reluctant (?) to overturn a unanimous finding by our own local Highest Court(?).
