The Office of the President arranges the taking and subscribing to the oath of office by persons to be appointed to the judiciary on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
A release from the JSC issued through GINA yesterday said that it found it necessary to release the information because of recent letters to the press on the issue.
Recently the appointment of Justice of Appeal Charles Ramson, a former attorney general and minister of legal affairs, ahead of two other judges to the Appellate Court was questioned by various persons. It was argued that this swearing-in before the other two justice of appeal conferred seniority on him on the panel.
Asked about this, Head of the Presidential Secretariat and Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon had told Stabroek News that the government did not have seniority in mind when Justice Ramson was sworn in two days ahead of the two others.
A February 3, 2008 letter to the editor of Stabroek News by attorney-at-law KA Juman-Yassin, expressed concern that Ramson had been sworn in two days ahead of Justices BS Roy and Yonette Cummings-Edwards thereby giving him seniority over the two. Dr Luncheon told this newspaper that in the context of the reform of the justice sector, “We are not going to slavishly pay attention to this notion of seniority.”
“We are looking at merit,” he said, “and if you are a good appeal court judge, no matter if someone is ten years ahead of you, if you got the merit, you will be appointed and put in position of authority. That is our position.”
Juman-Yassin in the letter said that he was disturbed over the way in which the swearing in of the three justices of appeal was done. Ramson, he noted, had been sworn in on January 28, 2008 and Justices Roy and Cummings-Edwards two days later.
As far as he was aware, he said, there was no valid reason why these persons, being in Guyana, were not all sworn in at the same time, and he felt that Ramson had been sworn in before the others to give him the advantage of being considered senior to them.
The reason why seniority was important, he continued, was because when the Chancellor of the Judiciary went on leave or was away, the Chief Justice would be appointed to act as Chancellor and the next senior Justice of Appeal, all things being equal, would act as the Chief Justice.
He said too that when an appeal was heard the Chancellor was the chairman of the tribunal. If he was not there the Chief Justice would head the tribunal if he was sitting. However, where there was a full complement of judges – in which case the Chief Justice would not normally sit – the chairman of the court and/or tribunal would be the next most senior judge.
He further contended that when promotion had to be made the most senior judge, all things again being equal, would be considered first. “Thus if there should be a vacancy in the post of Chief Justice then the next senior judge should first be considered,” he said, adding that at present Justice Nandram Kissoon was the next senior judge and he was scheduled to retire shortly.
