THERE is no doubt, for various reasons, some would rather not see Justice James Patterson be appointed the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission. Some think his appointment by President David Granger was inconsistent with Article 161 of the Guyana Constitution. Others think the appointment was unilateral and/or undemocratic, and some have posited though it is constitutional, the manner within which it was done bears adverse political consequences. Another school of argument is his age and President Granger not honouring the requirements he set to be considered for appointment.

Last month the High Court was asked by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Member of Parliament, Zulfikar Mustapha, to deem the appointment unconstitutional and the Chairman not qualified to be appointed under the Article. Last week the nation was advised by Attorney General Basil Williams via Solicitor-General Kim Kyte, who filed the Government’s response, asking the court to dismiss the case, citing its reasons for. Going to the court for a determination, and hopefully resolution, makes sense given the foundation from which the appointment was made and the contentious interpretation of the Article.

Several views by groups and organisations, notably the inconsistencies and making up of reasons as persons go along, why the Chairman is not fit and proper, the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) has taken a surprising, dare it be said alarming, take on this perception. In a release on Wednesday the organisation is questioning whether Justice Patterson is fit and proper to serve. Its question has nothing to do with the requirement of being a judge, a qualifying condition consistent with the Constitution. Its question is that of the criterion ‘fit and proper’ determined to be akin to characteristics of ability and integrity expected to be befitting someone in the legal fraternity.

If Justice Patterson was disrobed from the bar or engaged in any criminal or civil misconduct and found guilty by the Court, the ‘fit and proper’ would have carried expressed meaning. That this has not been the case, the matter raised by the GHRA, an organisation at which society looks to be amongst the most reasonable and impartial in our chaotic environment, is not synchronising.

Justice Patterson, whether seen as privileged or not, having served as Chief Justice, acting or confirmed, in Grenada, be it under a government that has the support of the United States (U.S) which in 1983 invaded the country and overthrew the Maurice Bishop Government, does not make him unfit. Even though the Bishop government was overthrown, something the Forbes Burnham Government condemned with the full support of Opposition Leader Cheddie Jagan, Grenada did not stop being a state.

To propose that Justice Patterson served during this checkered period as that country’s Chief Justice, when its Constitution was suspended and for argument sake a pseudo territory of the U.S where he presided over the trial of the alleged seventeen (17) ringleaders for the death of Bishop and others, does not disqualify him to serve as Chairman. Grenada did not fall off the map nor were Grenadians considered primitive, living in a land of no structure, rules and laws. There is no argument what the U.S did was wrong, but this does not reconcile with the thinking that the service any rendered during this time would make then unfit and improper.

The GHRA in raising questions about Justice Patterson being fit and proper for the job, is relying on an alleged sworn Affidavit by a Ramsay Clark that was made reportedly to the Michigan Court for access to records by the U.S Army and other U.S Government Agencies which would have released information of “disturbing facts.”

Readers are only to be disappointed when the GHRA made known that while a “U.S-based academic, Dr. Richard Gibson, filed a Freedom of Information request for access to a wide range of documents related to the trials…[to their] knowledge not a single document of the nine-month trial itself has ever been released.” Readers are left to deem credible what was written in some book titled “A Travesty Of Justice: The case of the Grenada 17” fully aware that not everything written is gospel, especially in this case where documents pertaining to the trial were not released.

There is no disputing the OAS Inter-American Human Rights Commission would have questioned the manner in which the trial was conducted, including respecting the rights of the accused. This is normal occurrence in the pursuit and dispensation of justice. Even if the seventeen rights were not upheld during the trial, worst case scenario can result in mistrial and/or compensation awarded. This too form part of the judicial undertaking, and insulates not even the best of judges or most talented member of the legal fraternity.

With all due respect to the GHRA, this is sensationalism gone amok. The court has been asked to decide and it makes sense to await its judgement. As the GHRA feels the seventeen rights were denied, it is hoped it doesn’t want to be accused of doing the same to Justice Patterson.