THE Bar Council of the Bar Association of Guyana has said it is deeply concerned by the President’s unilateral appointment of the Chairman of the Elections Commission, and noted no President of Guyana, from either of the major parties, has made a unilateral appointment in more than 25 years.
The body, in a statement, cautioned that the unilateral appointment of the Chairman can lead to a loss of public confidence in the electoral process which is entirely undesirable having regard to Guyana’s experience in past elections.
It is the Council’s expectation that, in keeping with the ruling of Chief Justice George in the matter of Marcel Gaskin against the Attorney General, the President will provide reasons for the rejection of the 18 names submitted to him by the Leader of the Opposition as prospective candidates for appointment.
Also, that the reasons “be provided forthwith to avoid the necessity of further litigation on this issue on its part.”

Referring to the Chief Justice’s ruling, the Bar Council pointed out that it was required that reasons were to be provided so that it is known why there is a rejection. Her Honour said that this is in order that the President may properly move to apply the proviso to Article 161(2) of the Constitution, which allows the President to appoint persons from the judicial category only, the statement added.
Also, that the President’s power to make a unilateral appointment to the office is limited by the Constitution, only to the situation where the Leader of the Opposition fails to submit a list as provided for by the Constitution.
In that context, the Bar Council remarked that “it should be obvious therefore that Guyanese cannot satisfy themselves that there is an objective and lawful basis for the President’s unilateral appointment of Justice James Patterson to that office,” unless publicly stated reasons for the rejection of the 18 persons found by the President to be unfit to hold the office of Chairman of the Elections Commission are provided.
“Only if clear and detailed reasons are provided which show cause, why each of the 18 rejected persons is unacceptable to the President for appointment to the office of Chairman of the Elections Commission, would it be possible to establish that the Leader of the Opposition failed to submit a list as provided for by the Constitution.
“The ruling of the Chief Justice is that reasons are required is part of the law of Guyana until such time as it may be set aside by a higher court. The Constitution must therefore be read in light of that decision, the statement added.
It further noted that the Chief Justice also ruled that “while the President is immune from suit his decisions and actions are not. Thus, whether in the exercise of his discretion there has been compliance with the Constitution is justiciable”.
The Bar Council in noting the statement of the Alliance For Change (AFC) of October 20, that each of the lists supplied to the President fell short of what was required by the Constitution, said it regrets that unlike them, the AFC did not seek to provide assistance to the Chief Justice by providing legal submissions in that regard,so that the precise legal reason each of the lists fell short of what was required by the Constitution could be publicly known.