Appointment of Deputy Registrar of Deeds fiasco

Dear Editor,
Article 199 (1) and (3) and Article 226 (1) of the Constitution provide as follows:
ART 199 (1) “the power to make appointments to the offices to which this Article applies and to remove and exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices shall vest in the Judicial Service Commission…”
ART 199 (3) “this article applies to the office of Commissioner of Title, Magistrate, Director of Public Prosecution, Deputy Director of Public Prosecution, Registrar of the High Court, Deputy Registrar of the High Court, Registrar of Deeds, Deputy Registrar of Deeds…”
ART 226 (1) “…in its exercise of its functions under this Constitution, a Commission shall not be subjected to the direction or control of any other person or authority.”
I wish to congratulate the Deputy Registrar of Deeds, Zanna Frank, for challenging the unlawful interference by the Attorney General (AG) in attempting to frustrate and prevent her from discharging the duties of her office. This young woman has demonstrated that she possesses the courage and fortitude to challenge authoritarianism and defend the Constitution and the rule of law. She has done her profession and gender proud.
The response of the AG has been characteristically untutored. It is obvious that, initially, he was unaware of the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution. This is evident by the fact that he purported to appoint someone to function in that office. This by itself speaks volumes. Upon learning that the power to make this appointment resides with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the learned AG proceeded to make a series of wild and reckless allegations. Firstly, the AG claims that he was not consulted by the JSC. This may be true. There is no obligation placed upon the JSC to consult with the AG or any other person in respect of this appointment. Secondly, he alleges that “the JSC was acting excessively and out of their jurisdiction”. This contention is incomprehensible. A tribunal acts in excess of and without jurisdiction if it makes a decision that it has no lawful power to make. Article 199, clearly vests in the JSC the power to appoint a Deputy Registrar of Deeds. The JSC has done so. How can it be said to be acting without and in excess of the jurisdiction?
Thirdly, the Attorney General describes Frank as a “pawn”, “hapless” and “inexperienced” and contends that she was “set up as a sacrificial lamb, knowing fully well that she would not be accepted, because she simply does not have the qualifications”.
One must ask, “accepted” by whom? Based upon the aforesaid constitutional provision, a decision of the Judicial Service Commission requires no one’s “acceptance”. Frank possesses a Certificate in Industrial and Social Science; a Diploma in Public Management; a Bachelors Degree in Law; and a Legal Education Certificate.
In fact, Frank may have been overqualified for that position. In any event, it is the JSC and no one else, who is empowered to assess her suitability for the job. They have done so. One is left to wonder whose “pawn” and “sacrificial lamb” is miss Frank? In the end, this outburst by the Attorney General amounts to a most uncouth, unethical and unprofessional onslaught upon a young female Attorney-at-Law by a person considered to be the head of the Bar.
The learned AG demonstrates no regard for the sub judice principle, publicly, expressing his views on the merits of a case that is pending in the Court. I note the silence of the Guyana Bar Association and the Guyana Women’s Lawyers Association on these gross transgressions.
According to press reports, the AG finds the power vested in the JSC to make this appointment objectionable. He wants these powers taken away from the JSC.This is an expression of the authoritarian’s intolerance of a divergence of power by the Constitution away from the Executive into an independent commission over which the Executive has no influence.
The AG professes his unawareness of the origin of this authority of the JSC. I believe him. For his information, this new measure was introduced among the nearly 200 odd recommendations generated by the 1999/2001 Constitutional Reform Commission, which were all unanimously incorporated by Parliament into the Constitution. Therefore, the Attorney General’s contention that it “was introduced by the previous Administration” is indeed correct, but the addendum, that it was supported by the PNC at the time, is necessary for one to get the full picture.
Finally, for the record, the AG’s rantings that he inherited a “mess” at the Deeds Registry is hereby rejected. I will furnish the details on another occasion. Suffice it so say, that he inherited a modern, well-equipped and properly staffed Commercial and Deeds Registries consolidated into a singular unit, the Deeds and Commercial Registry Authority, a statutory body corporate managed by a competent Board of Directors nominated by important stakeholders, along with an additional and renovated building which formerly housed the New Building Society Limited on Avenue of the Republic, Georgetown.

Sincerely,
Anil Nandlall, MP
Former Attorney
General