TODAY, President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo, will meet to discuss the appointment of a new Chairman for the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).

The high-level meeting will take place at the Ministry of the Presidency at 15:00hrs. It comes 16 days after the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruled that the appointment of Justice (Ret’d) James Patterson as Chairman of GECOM on October 19, 2017 was unconstitutional. Justice Patterson has since demitted office.

According to a letter addressed to the Opposition’s Spokesperson Gail Teixeira on Wednesday July 3, 2019 by the Director General of the Ministry of the Presidency Joseph Harmon, the date and time of the much-anticipated meeting were proposed by the President. The letter was made public by the Ministry of the Presidency on Wednesday evening.

It is anticipated that during this high-level meeting, both the President and Opposition Leader would nominate persons to be placed on the list for consideration in the

determination of the next Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission.
In delivering the landmark judgment on June 18, 2019, President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders said the President and the Leader of the Opposition ought to have met prior to the submission of the list and consulted on names. It was explained that consultation between the President and the Opposition Leader would have allowed for consensus and submission of a list of six persons who would have reached the eligibility requirements.

Paragraph 26 of the ruling states: “The Court decided that the most sensible approach to operationalise the Article was for the Leader of the Opposition and the President to communicate with each other in good faith and perhaps even meet to discuss, eligible candidates for the position of Chairman before a list is formally submitted. The aim of these discussions must be to agree (to) the names of six persons who fit the stated eligibility requirements and who are not unacceptable to the President.”

In a correspondence on June 28, 2019 to Teixeira, the Government said, based on its interpretation of the ruling, both the President and Opposition Leader should provide names of persons for the top post- a position the Opposition Leader said he is comfortable with.
Government’s position on the matter was stated by Harmon, in that correspondence to Teixeira. The President, since the ruling, has made it known that his Government will respect the decision of the CCJ, and as such, remains committed to meeting with the

Opposition Leader to discuss the important constitutional requirement.
Article 161(2) states that the Commission’s Chairman “shall be 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, or any other fit and proper person, to be appointed by the President from a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition after meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly.”

On October 19, 2017, President Granger, after rejecting a total of three lists of nominees for the position by the Opposition Leader, activated the proviso in Article 161 (2) and appointed Justice Patterson Chairman of the Elections Commission.

“Provided that if the Leader of the Opposition fails to submit a list as provided for, the President shall appoint a person who holds or 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,” a section of Article 161(2) states, placing in the hands of the President, the power to appoint a Chairman of GECOM outside of the list provided by the Opposition Leader, once that list is unacceptable.

But the CCJ President, in his ruling, said the use of the double negative sent a clear message on how the President ought to have viewed the nominees or list provided.