By Selwyn A. Pieters B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office
Created December 21, 2024
The Executive President of Guyana, His Excellency Mohamed Irfaan Ali and the Leader of the Opposition, Aubrey Compton Norton, are required by Article 127 of The Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, Chapter 1:01, (the Constitution) to agree on the appointment of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice of Guyana. Two of the highest judicial officers in Guyana's local courts, the highest being the Caribbean Court of Justice (President and other CCJ Judges).
Guyana Constitution was amended 2001, by Act No. 6 of 2001, The Constitution (Amendment) (No 4) Act of 2001, Article 127 (1) and (2) of the Constitution require agreement between the Executive President and the Leader of the Opposition on the Jurists to substantively occupy the posts of a Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice of Guyana.
There has been no agreement since 2005 between Executive Presidents (Jagdeo, Ramotar and Granger) and LOO (Corbin, Granger and Jagdeo) on jurists to occupy the positions of Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice of Guyana.
In June 2022, an application was filed in the Supreme Court of the Judicature styled as Vinceroy Jordan v. Attorney General 2022-HC-DEM-CIV-FDA-865. Materials were exchanged by the parties and filed in Court, written and oral arguments were presented and a written judgment was rendered on April 26, 2023. In that decision the Honourable Madam Justice Damone Younge made the following declarations in Jordan, at paragraph 45:
a. A Declaration that Article 127(1) of
the Constitution creates a mandatory constitutional duty and obligation on the
part of the President and the Leader of the Opposition to comply with its
provisions.
b. A Declaration that for as long as there
are no substantive appointments to the offices of Chancellor and Chief Justice
under Article 127(1) of the Constitution, the President and the Leader of the
Opposition are under a continuous mandatory constitutional duty and obligation
to engage in a process which results in compliance with Article 127(1) of the
Constitution.
c. A Declaration that notwithstanding that
Article 127(1) of the Constitution does not set any timelines for compliance
with its provisions, the duty imposed on the Constitutional actors by Article
127(1) of the Constitution must be discharged with all convenient speed.
d. A Declaration that any protracted or
further delay in complying with Article 127(1) of the Constitution is, and
would be, inimical to the independence of the Judiciary as set out in Article
122A of the Constitution.
The Court urged the parties to bring life to the declarations would be complied with “all convenient speed.” The Court stressed in para. 41 of its judgment that “no further delay or excuses ought to be countenanced.”
For too
long Guyana has been without substantive office holders for the two top
positions in the Judicial arm of the State, a situation which continues to be
untenable and unacceptable to the citizenry and inimical to the independence of
the judiciary that the Supreme Law of the land provides for. Any further delay
in commencing this process should be eschewed so that this "significant
blot on an otherwise impressive Guyanese legal and judicial landscape” is not
perpetuated further.
Both parties appealed the ruling for various reasons but none of the parties have taken steps to perfect the appeal.
As well, it is not apparent that the President and the Leader of the Opposition has engaged further as required by the Constitution on these appointments.
Progress has been made in the judicial appointments process in Guyana:
1)
There is a fully functioning Judicial
Service Commission;
2)
There were 10 judges appointed to the High
Court recently;
3) There were vacancies for six Court of Appeal Justices posted in May 2024. Applications were received, there was the vetting of each qualified candidates, those candidates were interviewed by the Judicial Service Commission and the Executive President has a short-list of suitable candidates from which he can appoint on the advice of the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs.
With the fix in the judicial shortage at both levels of Courts, the building and provision of more courthouses and courtroom facilities and judicial staff nationwide, the order of business in 2025 prior to the government going into election mode should be another meaningful engagement between the Executive President and the Leader of the Opposition in respect to the substantive appointments to the office of Chancellor and Chief Justice.
