THE applicant made an application for Declaratory Orders on:
a)  Whether the list of persons for appointment as Chairman of the Elections
Commission required to be submitted by the Leader of the Opposition under
article 161(2) must include a judge, a former judge or a person qualified as a judge.
b) Whether the President is required under the Constitution to state reasons for
deeming each of the six names on the list submitted by the President as  unacceptable.
c) Whether the President is obliged to select a person from the six names on the
list unless he has determined positively that the persons thereon are unacceptable
as a fit and proper person for appointment.
d) Whether a finding of fact by the President that any one or more persons is not
a fit and proper person renders the entire list as unacceptable.

Question A
Construing Article 161(1), (2), (3) and (4) utilizing various canons of construction
The court is reminded that a constitution is no ordinary statute. It is the source of legislative and executive authority. It determines how the country is to be governed and how legislation is to be enacted. It defines the powers of the different organs of state, including Parliament, the executive, and the courts as well as the fundamental rights of every person which must be respected in exercising such powers: State v Makwanyane and Another – [1995] 1 LRC 269.
It is submitted that the duty of the court is not to re-write the constitution but to interpret what is already stated in the constitution clearly. The words themselves best declare the intention of the framers. “ It is therefore submitted that the court should be cautious in applying cases from other countries which do not have similar provisions to that of our constitution.
Each constitution must be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the act. Hence the provisions of another constitution cannot be applied blindly to our constitution and the wide discretion which the framers have given to the President of Guyana. Only Parliament can change what is there, certainly not the court.  Up to now Parliament has not made any changes.

Literal Rule
In interpreting Acts of Parliament, Tindal CJ in the Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 11 Cl & Fin 85 posited, “… the only rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament is, that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such case, best declare the intention of the lawgiver.”
Maxwell on the interpretation of statutes 11th edition page 1 further emphasises this point by stating that “A statute is the will of the legislature and the fundamental rule of interpretation to which all others are subordinate… (and it) is to be expounded according to the intent of them that made it.”
A cardinal rule of construction of statues is that words and phrases assume their ordinary and natural meaning.  Under Article 161 (2) the following persons are considered qualified for appointment to the post of Chairman: (1) persons who hold 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; (2) persons who have 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; (3) persons who are qualified to be appointed as any such judge; and (4) any other fit and proper person.
The relevant section contains four categories of individuals worthy of candidature for the office of Chairmanship of the elections commission, namely:
1.  A “… Judge of a Court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth.”
2.   Judge of “a Court of Appeals having jurisdiction from any such court.”
3.  A Judge who is qualified to be as any such Judge.
4.  “Any other fit and proper person” – and here lies the conundrum
Clearly there is a pecking order of choice of the Chairman. The word “Judge” is the common denominator in all categories except the fourth. Category four is the lowest common denominator in the menu of the first three choices. The President must exercise his preference in consonance with the order of priority as stipulated by the section. It is a travesty of reason and the construction of statutes to begin his selection with a search in category four – the lowest common denominator.
A dictum of Cave J in the case of Pratt v South East Railway [1897] 1 QB 718 at 721 has this to say: “Doubtless, no form of words have ever yet been framed by human ingenuity with regard to which some ingenious counsel would not suggest a difficulty.“
These conditions have clearly been stipulated under the provisions in the Constitution. Where the President is unable to find any candidate from the mandatory two options, above, by the use of “or” in the beginning of the last six lines of sub article (2), he can use his discretion to determine who is fit and proper person qualified to be appointed the Chairman of the Elections Commission.

Ceteris paribus rule
It is this fourth category that the canon of construction known as the ‘ceteris paribus rule’ of interpretation kicks in. Literally the Latin term means “and such like.” The court can also be guided by this canon of construction. Hence any other fit and proper person can be interpreted to mean and ‘such like person’ as a judge, former judge or a person qualified to be a judge.

Noscitur a sociis
Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the role of   Judges is not to make law (role of Legislature) but to interpret the law. They cannot add to or subtract from Constitutional or legislative provisions before them. In discharging their obligations Judges can employ established canons of construction for example: – Noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis rules. Note the latter principle was discussed at length in the First Named Respondent’s previous submissions herein.
Noscitur a sociis- This rule is commonly referred to as the “context rule”, in that it states that words derive their colour from the words which surround them. Applying this rule, a general word must take its context or “colour” from the surrounding words with which it is used. The word or words must be interpreted in light of the context being used. (To be continued)