THE more conversations around the ruling handed down by Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire, Senior Counsel, on the criteria for selection of a GECOM chairman, the more society stands to benefit. Evidently, ignorance of the law though no excuse, has to a great extent stymied proper management of the nation and its resources and the treatment of its citizens. Public conversations on the Guyana Constitution with regard to

the ruling is in itself an exercise in public education.

First, let the mis-impression be gotten out of the way: a constitution was not made for interpretation by lawyers, it was made for citizens whose conduct will be bound by it and it is in their interest to know what are the rights, civic duty and responsibilities therein. Second, its conceptualisation and passage were from citizens with an array of disciplines and interests. In short, the Constitution was made for the people arising out of their beliefs systems, dreams and aspirations.

The level of ignorance, including in high places, regarding this instrument should not have been, were we as a people prepared to accept it as the instrument that lays the foundation and pillars for the laws to manage ours and the nation’s affairs. Had time been taken to get past the hatred for the person–Forbes Burnham–under whose leadership it was constructed and the propaganda that demonised it, and seek to understand its spirit and intent, the society could have been further along the developmental continuum.

Article 182, which grants the president immunity from civil and criminal proceedings in the exercise of his duty, has through ignorance and propaganda, come to define all that is evil with the Constitution, given that persons have associated it with the office-holder being above the law. It continues to defy logic how the president, having sworn to an oath to uphold the Constitution and Laws of Guyana, can be above it; yet this narrative continues to dominate the day. In so doing, it not only accepts carte blanche authority for the president to violate the laws of the land, plunder the resources of the state, and trample the rights of citizens, but shaping acceptance of the constitution allows such action.

The ruthless, lawless and self-serving have capitalised on society’s ignorance, and some have chosen to demonstrate similar attitudes by not seeking to be au fait with, or accepting proper advice on its interpretation. A constitution is designed to be a living document and can only have life when activated by the people. Justice George-Wiltshire who in 2011 ruled in the Twyon Thomas case two Mondays ago, did just that on the GECOM ruling. The Thomas’ case was that of the 14-year-old whose genital area was mutilated and burnt by the police while in the protection of the State at the Leonora Police Station.

In that ruling, in awarding the $6.5M the Justice noted her “view that this global or total award reflects that there is a need for the realisation and understanding that respect for the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution and respect for the human rights of persons requires [sic] vigilance and carries with it tremendous responsibility.”

The ruling gives meaning to Article 39(2) in the constitution that allows for the court to dispense justice consistent with international laws, conventions, covenants and charters bearing on human rights. What this is also saying to us is that the framers also recognised in our human frailty where we can be brutish/unkind to each other, justice and fair play can be secured based on universally acceptable principles.

Those following the issue of the qualification to become chairman of GECOM will observe from careful reading of the Constitution that the categories stipulated for consideration are given equal weight. There has been no preference given to one over the other. It is about competence and confidence, for while the Constitution has identified a judge with practice within a specific jurisdiction or person who can become a judge, it also places within this category “any other” person considered “fit and proper” for the job. My position from day one, which was made public, is that the Constitution gives equal weight to the categories.

In treating with the people’s business precedents are important, because these help to shape society and in this specific case, the precedence cannot be thrown overboard.  On this issue, the framers conceptualised and applied it in a specific way, and it cannot be changed by the stroke of another’s interpretation, where no solid argument has been advanced for destruction of the precedence.

The draftpersons for the present constitution, who are the ones that captured the intent of this instrument, are Alice Downes-Amsterdam, Cecil Dhurjon CCH, SC, Roxane George- Wiltshire SC, Justice Oswell Legall, Professor Keith Massiah, OR, SC, and Zehar Singh Negi. This society is fortunate to have the benefit and inputs of these persons and we do disservice to ourselves and the nation’s development by ignoring their contributions while they are alive, or leaving them on the sidelines as the nation grapples with understanding this instrument.

While there’s respect for Marcel Gaskin’s right to proceed with any further litigation legally permissible on the GECOM ruling, it does not absolve from questioning the wisdom of what he is seeking to do. Reading of the Constitution shows that articles are not standing alone and on many occasions they are linked to other articles in arriving at informed positions or the totality of the issue. It is my opinion that the chief justice’s ruling dealt with the totality of the issue as it relates to the chairman and the players involved.

On the issue of her counsel on the President’s engagement with the leader of the opposition, though not expressly written in the Constitution, it captured the spirit and intent of the instrument to ensure civility in the nation’s body politic and public discourse in arriving at an amicable settlement. The Constitution talks about forging a nation of one out of diversity and respecting such a process and also the role of the opposition in the process. This is classic inclusionary democracy and consensus-building which should not be dismissed.

There may not be agreement with all of the Justice’s rulings, but it cannot be denied in the cited two instances, which dealt with serious matters of national import and the treatment of citizens, her progressive thinking in using the law in shaping behaviour and governance augurs well for the nation and its people’s development.