Attorney-at-Law and former Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister, Anil Nandlall, is contending that “not unacceptable”, as per the constitutional requirements for guiding the choice of chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), means that Presidents of Guyana are not required to find a person on a list, presented to him/her by the Leader of the Opposition, who is ‘acceptable’ as an individual acceptance, but has to make a choice of someone whom he considers fit the requirements of Article 161 of the Constitution of Guyana.
This opens the door for compromises in the national interest. It is quite possible that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Presidents, and even former President Desmond Hoyte, when faced with having to make that choice, even if reluctant and not fully comfortable with the list of names presented to them, they did not digress from the Carter Centre formula, which paved the way for a smooth appointment of Chairmen of GECOM since elections of 1992.
The current imbroglio over the choice of a GECOM chairman could have been avoided if President David Granger had acted in good faith and chosen a chairman from the nominees submitted by the Opposition Leader, all of whom were well-respected Guyanese who have served in various capacities that required the stamina – mental and physical, for the arduous responsibilities mandated to the GECOM Chairman.
Obviously, his unilateral pick, after rejecting 18 eminent Guyanese, has been found wanting of many qualities required of a person who is chosen to lead Guyana into initially Local Government Elections, then General Elections that are due in 2020.
Clearly defined in the Constitution is the onus to find someone who is “not unacceptable” to him. The fact of his rejecting so many well-respected, highly-accomplished, eminently suitable members of Guyanese society as ‘not acceptable’ is a direct assault on the professional integrity of the persons whose names were proffered on the three lists submitted by former President and current Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo.
No President, or anyone for that matter, can violate a country’s Constitution without serious consequences; and the President’s mandate to appoint a GECOM chairperson is circumscribed by Article 161 of the Constitution of Guyana. President Granger is, therefore, bound to make that choice from the list – ideally the first list, presented to him by the Opposition Leader.
When the President requested the Opposition Leader to submit a list of names suitable for the position of chairman of GECOM, he was binding himself to submission to Article 161 of the Constitution of Guyana. However, his subsequent actions and rhetoric, culminating in the high-handed unilateral imposition of a chairman of his choice on the nation, drew the ire of Guyanese across all the divides, including some prominent members of his own party, which has precipitated a legal challenge to the appointment of Justice Patterson, clandestinely done at a time and on a day that pre-empted any legal action to forestall this indisputable assault on Guyana’s Constitution.
It is highly likely that this battle will reach the Caribbean Court of Justice, and this time it will be a battle between the nation and the State, because only a holistic approach by the widest stakeholder aggregate can achieve the sustained sacred bastion of democracy in our nation. This assault on the highest level representing our fledgling democracy has to be repelled; and this is not a political issue, but a national dilemma.
Only those au fait with the decades when our freedoms were held hostage can recognise the gravity of this looming national disaster.
Our freedoms were hard fought for and dearly won, even at the cost of the lives of freedom-fighters. Our freedom-fighters today need to engage in battle on every front – especially in the streets, at international and national fora and in the courts. Without a victory over this dire threat to Guyana’s democracy, our nation is doomed forever to live under the shadow of dictatorship.
