A CARIBBEAN jurist has accepted nomination to become Guyana’s Chancellor, President David Granger announced Friday during his second press conference held since taking office in May, 2015.

The Head-of-State in response to questions posed about the delay in the appointment of a substantive chancellor and chief justice said, “This is a matter of deep concern to me.
“The nominations were made and contact has been made with the person who has been nominated [for chancellor} and that person has accepted. We are now looking at the modalities for termination of the work that he is doing now in the country of residence,” said President Granger.

The nominee was selected and recommended to the President by a panel comprising former Justice of Appeal, Claudette Singh, Justice James Patterson, and Professor Harold Lutchman. It is unclear who the nominees for the posts are.
The President said every effort is being made to have the matter resolved soonest, while noting the concerns of President of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) Sir Dennis Byron. Sir Byron at a recently held Bar Association dinner in November called for the swift appointment of a substantive chancellor of the judiciary and chief justice.

At that forum, he also hinted that a judicial intervention might be needed to address a regulatory or statutory lacuna if it does indeed exist.
Guyana has not had a substantive chancellor of the Judiciary since 2005, mainly due to the fact that the opposition and governing parties have not agreed on candidates for the post. In his address at the 37th Annual Bar Dinner held at the Pegasus Hotel, Georgetown, the CCJ President made it clear that it was not the intention of the local constitution to have the two most senior judicial officials act in the posts for a prolonged period.

Sir Byron noted too that no substantive chancellor has been appointed since Justice Desiree Bernard, Guyana’s first female chancellor, demitted office and was appointed as the first female judge of the CCJ. Former acting Chancellor, Justice Carl Singh, acted in that post from 2005 until his retirement earlier this year.
He also stressed the need for substantive appointments in the guarantee of judicial independence to citizens.

BEYOND ACCEPTABLE
“This situation has moved well beyond what ought to be acceptable in a modern democracy, where respect for the rule of law is maintained. The constitution envisages the Judiciary of Guyana to be headed by officials who are substantively appointed and enjoy all the legal and institutional mechanisms to secure their tenure. Anything otherwise is, to my mind, a violation of the spirit and intent of the constitution.”

Article 127 (1) of the constitution speaks to the appointment of the chancellor and chief justice and says both the chancellor and chief justice shall be appointed by the President, acting after obtaining the agreement of leader of the opposition.
The aforementioned provision was a key aspect of the 2001 amendment to the instrument, whereas under the 1980 constitution, the appointments of the chancellor and chief justice could be made by the President, following consultations with the minority leader.

However, President Granger assured that in the near future, the appointment will be made.
“I am aware of the concern of the CCJ and I am working to have this matter resolved as early as possible,” he told reporters gathered at the Ministry of the Presidency.
Once the identified jurist arrives in Guyana, the President will meet with leader of the opposition Bharrat Jagdeo as is required by the constitution. The head-of-state reminded that while in opposition he had met with then President Donald Ramotar, but the duo could not agree on the nominations.

At that time, President Granger said he had proposed a formula to advertise, especially in the Anglophone Caribbean, for interested persons.
“He did not accept that recommendation, but when I got into office I implemented it and a panel of eminent jurists did interview some persons who were interested in the appointment of chancellor and chief justice.”

Back in March, President David Granger administered the Oath of Office to Justices Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Roxanne George-Wiltshire, who were sworn in to perform the functions of acting chancellor of the judiciary and acting chief justice, respectively. They replaced Justices Carl Singh (acting chancellor) and Ian Chang (acting chief justice).
In October, the President told reporters that he was awaiting a response from the nominee identified for the substantive post of chancellor of the judiciary.

Meanwhile, Justice Byron emphasised the importance of independence of the judiciary as stipulated in Article 122A (1) of the constitution.
He said too that the constitutional provision does not contemplate and/ or condone in any way prolonged acting services of the country’s number one and number two judicial officers.

GENUINE RISK
“Such a situation poses a genuine risk to the constitutional promise to every citizen of an independent and impartial Judiciary,” he warned, noting that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and no authority is above it.
The CCJ President reminded that the court is duty-bound to interpret and ensure that the provisions of the constitution are applied, while stressing that the delay in complying with Article 127 (1) of the constitution “has long reached a level of justiciability and the most appropriate authority for resolving this situation is the court system.”

He noted too that the said article is mandatory and not discretionary and any failure to fulfil the obligation should be seen as a breach of the constitution.
Additionally, the learned judge reminded that the interpretation of Article 127 was the subject of litigation 10 years ago in the case of Committee for the Defence of the Constitution v AG. In that case, the court was confronted with a challenge to Justice Carl Singh performing the functions of both chancellor and chief justice.

The court ultimately determined that it was a breach of the constitution for the functions of both offices to be performed simultaneously.
“What is interesting about this case is that while the court appears to have acknowledged that the failure to appoint a substantive chancellor for a prolonged period violated Article 122A (1) of the constitution, it seems to have viewed itself as constrained by Article 127 not specifying any time limit for the period of an acting appointment, or within which agreement must be reached.

“With the passage of 12 years the undesirability of further delay could no longer be controversial. This is a very serious issue, because attacking the problems of delay and all other issues that need reform requires strong leadership. It is simply obvious that a leader who is not appointed is under a disadvantage, and criticisms of the sector,” Justice Byron declared.