Former GECOM Chairman should have been officially un-appointed

Dear Editor,

Allow me to express a lingering thought on a matter that is now history.

Even with the previous unilaterally appointed chairman of GECOM gone and a new mutually agreed on replacement in place, I do not think the original constitutional breach is fully rectified. A few things still bother me about the matter.

I think the former incumbent should have been officially un-appointed via an instrument similar to the one used for the original unconstitutional appointment and with the same due process. In this way, the reverse corrective order would have clearly paralleled and washed out the wrong order, making for a clean slate.

Furthermore, on leaving, the appointee was thanked by the appointer for his services. More appropriately an apology for wrongful appointment would have been more to the point.

The former appointee’s leaving (voluntarily, I take it) seems to have been taken as complying with the findings of the CCJ on this matter, making it, for all intents and purposes, a moot point, not worthy of further attention. I don’t think so, since he was not the one who committed the offence, his action cannot correct it. It appears he decided to become the fall guy and take the rap for the appointer.

As it stands today, the matter still needs action along the lines suggested above: a revocation of the original unconstitutional action.

As an aside, the CCJ urged “good faith” and “reasonableness” in our governance. The truth is those two operatives cannot be legislated. Even in the United States, after nearly 250 years of adherence to the principles bequeathed by the Founding Fathers, look at what kind of leadership we have in the White House. And in the home country, as a political species, reasonable men acting in good faith became extinct a while back.

Yours faithfully,

P. D. Sharma

Los Angeles, California