The selection by Caretaker President David Granger of Justice (Retd.) Claudette Singh as the new GECOM Chair marks the end of an unnecessary political struggle that was supposed to have been resolved almost two decades ago. It exemplifies a mindset in the PNC leadership in general, and the Caretaker President in particular, that envisages the Constitution as a document that can be bent and twisted to only deliver results favourable to the PNC. Even though we have now crossed one hurdle, the mindset is sure to create new ones in the immediate future as we move haltingly into new elections.
Under PNC governments from independence up to 1992, the Elections Commission Chairman had been unilaterally appointed by first, the Prime Minister and then, the Executive President, who used them to rubber stamp his egregiously rigged elections. One of the agreements crafted with the return of “free and fair” elections after the Cold War ended in 1989, when the US no longer needed to backstop the PNC’s rigging, was for a process, later constitutionally enshrined in Art 162, be used to select the GECOM Chair in a process of give and take between the Opposition Leader and the incumbent President. The new mechanism now involved the Opposition Leader and was specifically designed to remove the old Executive unilateralism. The position of GECOM Chair was critical for neutrality since it held the casting vote between the six other Commissioners in charge of the Elections Machinery, who were evenly divided between the governing party and the Opposition. The Opposition Leader was to submit six names “not unacceptable” to the President from which he would make his choice. This process worked successfully to deliver six General and Regional elections that were internationally certified to be “free and fair”.
But out of the blue, after the last Elections Chairman resigned, Granger immediately adopted what can be most generously described as an “idiosyncratic” position when he insisted that the candidate must be a retired judge as before the constitutional change, and that the insertion of the clause “or any other fit and proper person” into Article 162 was of no consequence. Most revealing and disturbingly for the foundational governing doctrine of separation of powers in our democratic order, was his comment after the Chief Justice ruled he was incorrect that she was entitled to her “perception” and he was entitled to his.
In our hybrid, but yet Westminster-dominated parliamentary system of government, the Executive is totally in control of the Legislative Branch if it secures a majority at general elections. The third arm of government, the Judiciary, is therefore the last bastion against a de facto elected dictatorship. Unfortunately, we saw in the rearguard action of Granger in the negotiating period for the GECOM Chair, further signs of intransigence and obduracy over the constitution. When the CCJ ruled against his unilateral appointment of James Paterson as the GECOM Chair and mandated the “consensual” approach that was always implicit in the arrangement, the Opposition Leader magnanimously suggested that the President could also suggest some names. Granger, however, immediately transmuted this enlarged role into an absolute right to also submit names to the Opposition Leader’s list from which he would make his choice.
The new Chair will immediately be occupying an very hot seat, reluctantly vacated only after judicial intervention. Here again, the CCJ has ruled that the elections date must be set in accordance with the explication of Art 106 (2): three months after the passage of a no-confidence motion (NCM). While the PNC-led government’s recourse to the courts stopped the clock, this was restarted with the CCJ’s decision confirming the validity of the NCM on June 18. Elections therefore must be held by Sept 18 and this will almost certainly be confirmed by the Chief Justice later this week.
Chairperson Singh will then have to make a decision along with her Commission as to what methodology of preparing the voters list will best satisfy the date set by the constitution.
