President David Granger and Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo are expected to meet today to have meaningful consultations on the appointment of a new Chancellor of the Judiciary following the retirement of Justice Carl Singh, who acted in the post for more than a decade.
Article 127 (1) of the Constitution speaks to the appointment of the Chancellor and Chief Justice. It states that both the Chancellor and Chief Justice shall be appointed by the President, acting after obtaining the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition.
Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo
The provision was a key aspect of the 2001 amendment to the instrument.
The meeting was organised after President Granger announced at his first press conference in two years, that he has accepted a proposal from a committee that had been set up to review and interview applicants interested in the top judicial post after it advertised locally, regionally and internationally.
“This is a matter of deep concern to me. The nominations were made, and contact has been made with the person who has been nominated [for Chancellor} and that person has accepted. We are now looking at the modalities for termination of the work that he is doing now in the country of residence,” said President Granger.
Granger said on that occasion that he had already contacted the recommended individual who later accepted the nomination. Diligent work by the media revealed that the person the President favoured was Justice Kenneth Benjamin, who currently serves as the Chief Justice of Belize.
President David Granger
Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Jagdeo confirmed the meeting during a press conference on Tuesday held at Freedom House. He would not offer any other comment on his initial position on the suitability of the proposed candidate or whether he felt the process to arrive at a nominee was transparent and fair.
It is not clear too whether Jagdeo had access to the final report and all the requisite information relating to the selection of Justice Benjamin by the panel, which comprised former Justice of Appeal, Claudette Singh; Justice James Patterson, and Professor Harold Lutchman.
“I am not willing to make any comments on this matter until after the meeting with the President which is set for tomorrow (today),” he maintained after being questioned by the media.
Jagdeo had warned that even though the President has to make the first move to resolve the decade-long failure to appoint a substantive Chancellor and Chief Justice, he would not allow himself to be coerced into accepting nominees just to fix the situation.
“Now we have two persons who are acting in the position(s). As you would recognise, this is not a new situation. It’s not desirable, but it’s how it has been for a long time in our history… just to have a substantive nominee. I am not going to promise now that any names that the President submits to me, that I will automatically give my approval for those names,” Jagdeo is quoted as saying in another section of the media.
In December, concerns were raised about the track record of the President’s nominee and the fact that his performance was under scrutiny in Belize because of his inability to deliver timely rulings and judgments in a number of cases which led to a backlog. As a result, several professionals there had lobbied for disciplinary action to be taken against him if he failed to deliver the necessary judgments within a prescribed time.
Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) President, Sir Dennis Byron, speaking at a Guyana Bar Association event, had severely criticised the non-appointment of a substantive Chief Justice and Chancellor.
Sir Dennis noted too that no substantive Chancellor has been appointed since Justice Desiree Bernard, Guyana’s first female Chancellor, demitted office and was appointed as the first female Judge of the CCJ.
“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. Anything otherwise is, to my mind, a violation of the spirit and intent of the Constitution,” Sir Dennis said then. (Michael Younge)
