Nominees selected for top judicial posts

…need Opposition Leader’s blessing

By Jarryl Bryan

After months of acting in their respective positions, the current acting Chancellor and Chief Justice may soon find themselves being passed over for appointment to the posts, as President David Granger himself has confirmed that a replacement nominee has been found.
Granger made this disclosure on Friday during his first press conference in two years. Describing the substantive appointments as a matter of concern to him, he related that, as President, he revisited a formula for filling the positions that former President Donald Ramotar had rejected. That formula, according to Granger, was

to advertise both locally and in the Caribbean.
“The nominations were made, and contact has been made with the person who has been nominated. That person has accepted. We are now looking at the modalities… the termination of the work he is doing now in the country of residence. I am aware of the concerns of the Caribbean Court of Justice. I am working to have this matter resolved as soon as possible,” he disclosed.
Granger revealed that the person chosen for either of the top judicial posts is currently in Guyana. According to the Constitution, however, the President must hold consultations with Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo. But according to Granger, he is prepared to meet with Jagdeo.

CCJ
Just recently, President of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Sir Dennis Byron, zeroed in on the trend of persons being appointed to top positions in Guyana’s judiciary, but being forced to act for years while their confirmation remains in limbo.
In a recent address to the Guyana Bar Association, he condemned the fact that since former Chancellor Desiree Bernard demitted office, agreement has not been

reached for the substantive appointment of a Chancellor.
“This situation has moved well beyond what ought to be acceptable in a modern democracy, where respect for the rule of law is maintained. The Constitution envisages the Judiciary of Guyana to be headed by officials who are substantively appointed and enjoy all the legal and institutional mechanisms to secure their tenure,” he continued.
Referring to Article 122 A(1), which states that “All courts and all persons presiding over the courts shall exercise their functions independently of the control and direction of any person or authority; and shall be free and independent from political, executive and other form of discretion and control.” Byron bluntly stated

that the delay is a breach of the spirit and intent of the Constitution.
Article 127 (2) of the Constitution states that, “If the office of Chancellor is vacant … then until a person has been appointed to, and has assumed the functions of, such office…the functions shall be performed by such other of the judges as shall be appointed by the President after meaningful consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.”
Commenting on this, Byron noted that the language of the Act suggests that the appointment was to be a short term one before a substantive appointment. He noted that even from a subjective analysis, the Constitution never intended for the years it has taken to fill the substantive positions to have elapsed.
Byron noted that the delay in complying with Section 127(1) of the Constitution has long (breached) a level of justifiability, and the most appropriate authority for resolving this situation is the court system.”
Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards was appointed by President Granger in May of this year as acting Chancellor of the Judiciary. Prior to that position, she acted as the Chief Justice from December 2015. She was never confirmed to the substantive position.
Edwards replaced Justice Carl Singh, who retired after acting as Chancellor since 2005. The current Acting Chief Justice, Justice Roxanne George, was also appointed to her position on the same day as Edwards.