By way of a letter in the SN dated December 30, 2010, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Labour, Mr Dindyal Permaul disclosed that veterinarian and Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Dr Steve Surujbally had been appointed as Chairman of the Guyana Livestock Development Authority (GLDA).
Mr Permaul’s letter was in response to one in the December 28th edition of SN querying among other things whether an appointment of a chairman of the GLDA had been concluded. As an aside, since his letter, Mr Permaul himself has been appointed as the Chief Executive Officer of the GLDA.
It is quite disturbing that neither Dr Surujbally nor the Ministry of Agriculture addressed frontally and publicly the constitutional injunction against the Chairman of the Elections Commission taking up employment elsewhere. In his missive, Mr Permaul opines that the letter writer of December 28th had a problem with the appointment of Dr Surujbally, “a highly regarded veterinarian, as Chairman of the GLDA Board, while he is at the same time Chairman of the Elections Commission.
“For our part there is no irregularity since the appointment as GLDA Chairman can by no stretch of the imagination be considered `employment’”. He further blithely asserted “We understand that Dr Surujbally would himself have anticipated such a scurrilous attack and discussed the issue with several politicians and gained their approval”.
To say that Mr Permaul overreached would be an understatement. He has plunged headlong into waters that only constitutional experts can properly pronounce upon and derides the Constitution by suggesting that discussions between Dr Surujbally and several politicians and their apparent subsequent approval of his decision could substitute for the highest law of the land. Mr Permaul’s explanation is redolent of the disrespect this administration evinces for the constitution, institutional safeguards and the rule of law.
However, the primary burden for satisfactorily settling this matter isn’t that of Mr Permaul. It rests completely in the purview of Dr Surujbally.
The best constitutions are those that are written in the simplest of language and are widely accessible to the masses. The relevant article in this matter is 161 which baldly states: “There shall be an Elections Commission for Guyana consisting of a Chairman, who shall be a full-time Chairman and shall not engage in any other form of employment…” To the layman’s reading it would seem clear that the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission is prohibited from seeking any form of employment elsewhere. The question then becomes whether chairmanship of the GLDA is considered employment. Mr Permaul has boldly ruled it out completely. He says by “no stretch of the imagination” can it be considered employment. We differ strongly, particularly, if Dr Surujbally’s employment is remunerated and comes with a full list of responsibilities. It boggles the mind that Dr Permaul would infer that chairmanship of the Elections Commission could be considered employment but not chairmanship of the GLDA.
Further, the reference to “full-time” in Article 161 could only be interpreted as an expectation that there would be no diminution of the time allotted and expected of the chairman of the Elections Commission in this very onerous task.
The July 17, 1999 report of the Constitution Reform Commission to the National Assembly which addressed the matter of a full-time chairman framed it in the context of minimizing the role of political parties and there was a near unanimous vote in favour (16) with just two against and only on the grounds of the manner of the selection of the Chairman.
It is disappointing that there is no evidence in the public domain that Dr Surujbally approached the courts or recognized legal experts for an interpretation of whether his holding of the position of Chairman debarred him from seeking to occupy a post in the public service irrespective of the scope of the work assigned. That would have been the advisable course of action particularly as it inheres from Mr Permaul’s letter that Dr Surujubally had been contemplating for sometime now taking up the post as Chairman of the GLDA. Instead, the first public inkling of his appointment has come from the Ministry of Agriculture with a thoroughly unconvincing explanation.
The constitutional rectitude of his employment at GLDA aside, there are very good reasons why it would be improper and ill-advised for the Chairman of the Elections Commission to take up this appointment.
The country is less than a year away from general elections. No chairman of GECOM post Sir Harold Bollers would suggest that running this process is easy and allows them time to hold down another job. No part of the elections process is hassle free and not time consuming. From extraction of the PVL, to claims and objections, ID cards, appointment of staff and scrutineers, sourcing and distribution of materiel, database security etc. It is not conceivable that the Chairman will not devote himself full-time to presiding over the preparation and running off of general elections.
Moreover, there have been sinister murmurings about whether elections will be held on time, whether there might not be a move for an extension of the present term a la Mr Hoyte in 1990 and various other permutations. There have also been clear indications that GECOM’s purse strings are being pulled very tightly by the Office of the President and that President Jagdeo himself is concerned – whether justified or not – with accountability for money at the commission. As intrusive into the affairs of GECOM as these excursions are they connote that the commission has to be en garde against efforts to destabilize it.
Further, by placing himself in the employ and ambit of a different structure wherein he is vulnerable and liable to instructions from the Minister of Agriculture and the ubiquitous President Jagdeo, Dr Surujbally risks the erosion of the independence of his office both in terms of appearance and in reality.
Dr Surujbally has also now opened himself and his role as Chairman of GECOM to a legal challenge in a quite litigious society and where politicians are not averse to the use of the courts to frustrate the electoral process.
Under these circumstances it is difficult to understand and justify his acceptance of the GLDA appointment. It might be instructive at this point to repeat the rationale provided by the Constitution Reform Commission in its 1999 report for the changes it recommended to the Burnham constitution: “In the light of the historical mistrust which has surrounded the conduct and management of elections, the Commission recognized that the legitimacy of a government and the effectiveness of our system of governance depend upon the acceptance by winners and losers of the work of the Elections Commission”.
As stated above we believe that the first recourse should have been to the courts and this should still be done. However, Dr Surujbally should also consider on his own whether he remains fully committed to the chairing of the elections commission and continuing with the track record he has established from the 2006 polls. If he is then it would follow that he would abandon the pursuit of this nebulous post at the GLDA.
