IT was evident that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic’s (PPP/C) motion against the appointment of Justice James Patterson as Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission(GECOM), arose out of its belief that he had not been a ‘‘fit and proper” person to be appointed to such office; and that President David Granger was bound to make a choice for such a critical constitutional body, from any of the list of nominees, submitted by the leader of the opposition.

Concomitantly, there was also an expectation — too optimistic perhaps — but one void of any legal reasoning that the court would have ruled favourably in respect of the motion’s contentions.

The learned Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire’s (ag) ruling can only be described as erudite, clearly unambiguous in its reading, understanding, intent, and conclusion, as it was judicially incisive. The beauty about this decision was that it was written and pronounced in very simple, legal language for citizens to read and comprehend.

This is appreciated, since it is about a very important constitutional body that has to do with the exercise of national elections in a transparent manner, and with the Executive having to address a most central aspect–that of selecting its chairperson, with the agreement of leader of the parliamentary opposition.

The motion, clearly “misconceived”, as described by the chief justice, conveyed the unmistakable “scraping of the barrel”, with an air of desperation as the PPP/C frantically went on a foray in every sphere to build a political motion with the view to discrediting both the integrity, honour and dignity of the appointed judge.

As an example, to describe as a “political segment”, for whatever such may mean, Justice Patterson being a pall-bearer at the funeral of the late President Desmond Hoyte, as reason for making him unfit for the chairmanship, underlines a wild, thoughtless, and senseless urgency to solicit judicial sanction. No doubt that it attracted a brand of “ludicrous’’ by the Madame Chief Justice.

For the clarity and understanding of those who genuinely did not understand the individual roles of the President, and leader of the opposition in the critical process of the choice of a chairperson of GECOM and even those who allowed themselves to be misled.

First of all, it is the opposition leader’s remit to submit a proper list of nominees which gives the President sufficient scope for consideration for appointment, and not one that comprises persons who were publicly known for their political views and affiliation, as well as being financiers of the former PPP/C administration. Since the ideal candidate must be one of honesty and integrity, in whom confidence must unhesitatingly be reposed to effect a transparent management of local government and national elections, then such lists as submitted, could have only been described as provocative, designed to insult the President with the egregious intent of creating a national quarrel.

Secondly, Article 182 (1) gives the President the clear mandate to act in his own deliberate judgment. This had been clearly underlined in the chief justice’s ruling in the Dominic Gaskin motion against the appointment when she stated, “The submission of the list does not mean that the President is obliged to accept the lists or the persons named in it.

Specifically, she stated that if the list is deficient, “either in totality or in the names that have been included,” that the President has the right to deem the entire list as “unacceptable”. It was a fact again re-emphasised in the dismissal of this latest challenge when she said “…the decision to accept or reject a list by extension the discretion to appoint one of the nominees on the list submitted pursuant to article 162 (10) lies with the President.” We interpret this to mean that the President enjoys the constitutional right to reject the entire list and appoint someone from the judiciary, as was his consistent contention, and which he finally did.

The PPP/C’s intention to import political bias within the functioning mechanism of the nation’s electoral administrative body has failed miserably. In seeking to undermine the office of the chairman through such a dubious motion, points also to an appeal to other interests. It is a clear orchestration to create doubts and fears in the minds of constituents, and citizens in general. Such a dangerous scenario, is a retrograde step in the building of constitutional bodies designed for overseeing the important functions of the state. The nation cannot benefit from such grave political mischief.