THE Ministry of the Presidency (MoTP) issued a statement on Saturday, which should remove any doubt of President David Granger’s commitment to respect the decision handed down by Madam Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire, Senior Counsel, on the interpretation of Article 161 in the Guyana Constitution, which addresses the appointment of Chairman for the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).

There is no desire to reiterate the different views, responses and actions surrounding the matter. Suffice to say that this issue has generated many conversations and nay it be said has been sucking the oxygen out of the society to address other matters of equal or greater importance. Where there exists any speculation what the President may have meant and how he plans on proceeding on the matter is now cleared up. This is important not only from the standpoint that the position has to be filled, but also it is the President who is constitutionally charged with the responsibility to be the final determinant on the person he finds acceptable to be appointed chairman.

It cannot be denied that there remains widespread interest in the appointment of a chairman. Former Chairman Dr. Steve Surujbally had in November 2016 submitted his resignation and was asked to stay on until a replacement is found, but in February resigned, and since then the position has been vacant.

The vacancy has not only created concern in the society, but also opportunities for political provocateurs to thrive. In neither instance can the views be ignored. Whereas in the former the recognition that GECOM is vital to the electoral processes and integrity of the society and its policy-makers should actively be shaping its direction, in the latter instance it creates fuel to cast aspersions which in our society it often matters not that those who accuse are too not free of taint.

Allegations, real or perceived, of rigged elections have haunted this society and created deep political divisions, which in our society translate to racial mistrust and animosity. Where it is being said that the absence of a chairman is a strategy by the Government to engage misconduct similarly, it cannot be ignored that the presence of a chairman in the 1997 General and Regional Elections did not prevent allegations of rigging and the High Court vitiation of those elections.

The 2006 elections saw the Alliance For Change’s parliamentary seat being wrongly awarded to the PPP/C and there was a sitting chairman. In 2011, were it not for the vigilance of Commissioner Vincent Alexander, there could have likely been a repeat of the 2006 declarations. The 2011 elections, when the votes were properly tallied and awarded, saw the combined opposition securing the legislative majority. In 2015, when the PPP/C lost the General Elections — i.e. both the legislature and executive — the party cried foul and said the elections were rigged. For days, its leadership, members and supporters, protested in front of GECOM headquarters calling for Dr. Surujbally’s removal, even though he was Chairman of the 2006 and 2011 elections.

These aforesaid incidents will be skewed, forgotten, justified or conveniently remembered by provocateurs and those who live off such sentiments. And though these may be learning and less-than-pleasant experiences, the past is enough to serve as prologue of the importance of ensuring that the Carter Center formula — constitutionally enshrined — continues to work.

A notable positive from all the experiences surrounding Justice George-Wiltshire’s ruling is that it has now established the guidelines for interpretation and proceeding on the Article under review. This recognition was made clear by President Granger.

Accordingly, the MoTP’s statement said, “While the President believes that the Constitution was crafted the way it was to give preference to the appointment of ‘a person who holds or who has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth, or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court, or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge,’ he has never disagreed with [the] acting chief justice’s ruling in that the Constitution clearly states that ‘any other fit and proper person’ can be appointed. President Granger’s comments complement and do not contradict that ruling.”