Mr Norton’s Moment of Statesmanship

Dear Editor,
Few moments in politics allow one person to alter the tone of national life. Mr Aubrey Norton now faces such a moment.
A decision by him to endorse President Irfaan Ali’s nominees for Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice rests squarely in his hands. If he chooses to do so, that decision would not be seen as surrender but as an act of maturity and statesmanship – a gesture that could redefine how history remembers him.
Mr Norton’s tenure as Leader of the Opposition is coming to an end. While his party may debate its direction and leadership, he alone still holds the constitutional authority to resolve one of Guyana’s longest institutional deadlocks. If he uses that authority wisely, he could walk away not as a footnote in history or a casualty of political turnover, but as the man who finally completed what others before him could not – the restoration of constitutional normalcy to the highest offices of the judiciary.
Much of the public criticism on this issue has been misdirected at the Government, overlooking that such appointments require agreement between the President and the Leader of the Opposition. For more than twenty years, that consensus has been missing – leaving Guyana with “acting” judicial heads, a situation that does not exist in any other country in the Commonwealth.
Substantive appointments would signal to the world that Guyana’s democracy and institutions have matured. As the country attracts global attention and investment, stability in its judiciary is vital to its credibility. Mr Norton’s cooperation would demonstrate that even in political rivalry, national interest will prevail.
Importantly, his supporters would in no way be disadvantaged. The final appellate jurisdiction remains with the Caribbean Court of Justice – a regional body beyond local political influence – ensuring that judicial independence and fairness are preserved at every level.
The alternative, if he delays, is far less dignified. Within days, the authority to consent to these appointments may fall into the hands of an individual under serious indictment and sanction – a situation that would not only tarnish Guyana’s reputation but also invite national embarrassment. It would be unthinkable for a person facing such serious criminal charges to participate in the selection of the very Judges who may one day have to try him. Such an outcome would cast a very dark shadow over the country’s institutions at a time when Guyana should be consolidating its credibility abroad.
Mr Norton still has time to act – to prove that leadership is not only about opposing but also about rising to the need of the hour and completing what the Constitution demands. Such an act would not only fulfil a constitutional duty but would stand as an enduring testament to statesmanship – securing for him a legacy that outlives both politics and partisanship.

Yours sincerely,
Suresh Dookhie