Dissatisfied with the ruling upholding the appointments of the Chairpersons of both the Police Service Commission and the Inte-grity Commission, Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton has filed a challenge before the Court of Appeal.
Norton who had brought the action contesting the appointments, is arguing that acting Chief Justice Roxane George SC, committed a number of errors which he says led to her “misconceived” and ”erroneous” finding.
Outlining the grounds of his appeal, Norton (the Appellant) said that the Judge “misinterpreted, misconstrued and misapplied” the “value and objective” of meaningful consultation as is required by the Constitution.
His contention is that the Judge erred and misdirected herself in law when she found that the President did engage him (Norton), through the consultative process required for making the appointments.
Norton continues to strongly contend that no reasons had been provided by President Irfaan Ali to substantiate why the particular persons were appointed; arguing that the answer “[they are] people of good standing in our society,” does not suffice.
While the Opposition Leader is satisfied with the aspect of the ruling invalidating the manner in which the Police Service Com-mission was established, he is challenging the Chief Justice’s decision saving all actions carried out by it.
He argues that the Judge gave weight to irrelevant factors, and according to him rendered a decision which went “against the weight of the evidence and public records and or documents” which he said the Court had judicial notice of.
Norton is of the view that the ruling is unlawful, went against the Separation of Powers doctrine and other established principles, is erroneous and misconceived; and is asking the appellate court to set aside and/or reverse it.
Finding that the President had meaningfully consulted with Norton, the Chief Justice last month affirmed the appointments of the Chairpersons of both the Police Service Commission and the Integrity Commission.
In her two-part ruling, Justice George also validated the appointment of the members of the Integrity Commission but while upholding Patrick Findlay’s appointment as Chairman of the Police Service Commission, she distinguished it from that of the appointment of the body itself, which she said was not lawfully reconstituted.
On the latter point, Justice George found that President Ali had sufficiently discharged his duty to meaningfully consult with Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton but added that in the absence of a Chairman of the Public Service Commission, which was integral to the process of consultation needed for the reconstitution of the Police Service Commission, that body was not legally set up.
It had been Norton’s contention that the President failed to “meaningfully consult” him as is required by law, before appointing Findlay and Chairperson of the Integrity Commission Chandra Gajraj.
Regarding the requirement for procedural fairness in the process of meaningful consultation, Justice George noted that the President’s consultation with Norton bore the elements of dialogue, inclusion, mutuality and accommodation as established in case law.
She then added transparency and accountability which she said were elements also present.
By way of a fixed date application (FDA), Norton had argued that the President appointed Findlay as Chairman of the PSC without first meaningfully consulting him as is required by Article 210 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
Further, he said that Ali also appointed Gajraj as Chair of the Integrity Com-mission without meaningfully consulting him in accordance with Section 3 (4) of the Integrity Com-mission Act.
Norton argues through his attorneys Roysdale Forde SC and Selwyn Pieters, that the appointments are “illegal, null, void and of no legal effect” and wants the appellate court to so declare.
He also wanted the Court to declare that the appointments of Dr. Kim Kyte-Thomas, Imaam Mohamed Ispahani Haniff, Pandit Hardesh Tewari and Reverend Wayne Bowman as members of the Integrity Commission were done without proper consultation and are therefore illegal.
