If there ever was any doubt, it is now clear that President Ali has no intention of moving towards substantive appointments to the positions of Chancellor of the Judiciary and the Chief Justice (CJ) as long as the current acting holders of the posts are the ones who are in line for confirmation.
At his press conference on Saturday, the President employed several specious excuses to justify not discharging his constitutional duty and eventually settled on one i.e. that the functions of the Chancellor and CJ are currently being fully discharged. As the chief custodian of the constitution and the holder of the most potent position in the country, the President would be aware that none of these seminal constitutional positions are meant to have persons acting in the posts for years. That would be to undermine the fundamental tenet that each of the holders of these offices must be fully empowered. Further, by not enabling security of tenure for the Chancellor and the CJ, the executive branch, in the form of the President, is deliberately weakening the judiciary.
The President’s dereliction also comes in the wake of a compromise offer by the Leader of the Opposition, Aubrey Norton and a ruling of the High Court that these appointments be made speedily.
When he was first asked at Saturday’s press conference about the two appointments, the President answered as if he was ignorant of the constitution or pretending to be so. His answer to the Guyana Times reporter was as follows: “Well, I can’t say much at the moment but to say that we have now a Judicial Service Commission. My last update from the commissioner is that they have started their work they are looking at the judiciary in a broad and holistic way to see because it is not only a Chancellor and the Chief Justice that we are talking about it is vacancies that exist in the entire judicial system. They are looking at this in a very holistic and broad way and I don’t want to speak on behalf of the Judicial Service Commission but I know they started their work”.
There is no link between the work of the JSC and the substantive appointment of a Chancellor and CJ as governed by Article 127 of the Constitution. The President had made this error before and his repeating it on Saturday is nothing short of disgraceful.
Asked by Stabroek News about the proposal by Mr Norton for both Chancellor Cummings and Chief Justice George to be confirmed, the President said: “Well, I’ve answered this before, there’s a way in which things are done the right way and the wrong way and I’ve said what is the right way, now the Judicial Service Commission is in place I’ve said that was a key and important body that had to be in place. The Judicial Service Commission is in place that commission will now conduct its work independently. Not only the issue of the Chancellor and Chief Justice but I know they are working on the judiciary in its macro form. Having said that I’ve repeatedly said the country is not without a Chancellor and Chief Justice who are empowered to execute their duties to the fullest of the constitution”. This again was a litany of nonsense that did not address the matter of Mr Norton having made a proposal more than a year ago which the President is still to respond to.
When it was pointed out to him by Demerara Waves that appointments of the CJ and Chancellor are outside the purview of the JSC, the President said: “No, so I said the Judicial Service Commission because ….my view of this (is) we have to look at the entire judiciary we are not without a Chancellor and Chief Justice, I want the work of the Judicial Service Commission to be expanded so that we can understand the fullness of the issues and challenges of the judiciary so that we can approach this in a holistic way.
“I point to the fact that there are numerous vacancies within the judiciary itself. Now at the appropriate time just as I’ve appointed the Judicial Service Commission this matter will be dealt with. I’ve not said in any way shape or form that this matter is not going to be dealt with but let me also say to you and remind you again that our country is not without Chancellor or Chief Justice.
“I just want to keep reminding because you know it can be easily misinterpreted that we are without a Chief Justice or Chancellor which is not the case. The Chief Justice and Chancellor have this very clear mandate and they are executing that mandate in line with the full powers assigned to them by the constitution”.
This is the pattern that the press conference followed with the President bristling at the suggestion that the appointments were not being made as his government was concerned over decisions that had been made by the judiciary. It was at this point that the President had the gumption to mention the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and the finality of their rulings perhaps forgetting that the President of the court, Justice Adrian Saunders had appealed to his government on April 9th last year thusly: “There is one significant blot on an otherwise impressive Guyanese legal and judicial landscape. For the country to have not appointed a Chancellor for 17 long years is very disappointing; likewise, to be without an appointed Chief Justice for several years. As the President of your final court, I believe I have a right and a duty publicly to express the view that Guyana should not let this year pass and not remedy this regrettable situation.”
More pointedly, in April of this year, rejecting an opposition motion that the President was in breach of the constitution, High Court Judge Damone Younge ruled that President Ali must act with “all convenient speed” in ensuring the appointments of a substantive Chancellor and Chief Justice and therefore must also move with swiftness in engaging the Leader of the Opposition as is mandated by the Constitution. She added that the current state of affairs “is a stain to our country’s otherwise richly woven legal tapestry.”
Well, more than four months have elapsed since that injunction and one can certainly now argue a case that the President is in contempt of that finding particularly since there is a proposal on the table from Mr Norton.
The fact that more than six questions and follow-ups were asked of the President by three different media houses underlines the importance of the matter of the substantive appointments. But what about those who should also be pressing this issue? The bar association is mostly silent, those counsel who have taken silk cannot find their voices and the private sector which is always keen on gorging at the trough of public monies can hardly be troubled to bat an eye at this pernicious ongoing attempt to weaken and direct the judiciary.
The President’s failure to act and his obduracy as evidenced by his performance at Saturday’s press conference will impact upon how others perceive the quality of governance in this country, a development that will have varied repercussions.
