Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo yesterday said that he would again hold public consultations to select a new list of nominees for the chairmanship of the Guyana Elections Commission (Gecom) if a proposed meeting between his representative and the Attorney-General on the issue is positive.
Jagdeo, who yesterday formally notified President David Granger of his acceptance of the proposal to have his representative meet with Attorney-General Basil Williams on the nominations, made the disclosure after a public forum on the issue hosted by the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) at the Umana Yana.
Jagdeo and party Shadow Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall shared a panel at the forum with invited guests Ronald Burch Smith, of the Guyana Bar Association (GBA) and Nigel Hinds, representing civil society.
All four made presentations to a packed venue of mostly party members.
Jagdeo, in his presentation, pointed out that an invitation was also extended to Williams, who did not show up. Nonetheless, he made his party’s position on the matter clear, saying that it believes that the list of names of six persons that he submitted to the president was in compliance with Article 161 of the constitution and he does not know why none of the nominees was accepted by Granger.
“We will attend the meeting and listen to the arguments …that is a nightmare thing to talk to—Basil Williams—but we will do it and let us see how it goes and after that we will continue to engage,” he stated.
“I am very conscious that I am very central in this process because I hold a constitutional post that is mentioned in the constitution… I have an open mind and I am prepared to engage in a meaningful way on my constitutional duties to see the constitution is respected in its intent and process. We will be engaged in this process,” he added.
On Wednesday, Granger wrote Jagdeo suggesting that Williams meets a representative of his choice on issues surrounding the nominees for the Gecom chair, following his rejection of Jagdeo’s initial submission. Jagdeo subsequently agreed.
Granger said he felt his recourse was best for all parties towards getting the matter resolved quickest, with an outcome that he anticipates would be favourable.
Noting that the president’s proposal was different from the legal clarification which he had previously promised to provide, Jagdeo nonetheless announced that he would acquiesce to Granger’s request.
Nandlall told Stabroek News yesterday that on Monday he will send a letter to the Attorney-General requesting a date for the meeting.
‘New course’
For Jagdeo, a way forward will be decided upon the outcome of the meeting between the two parties’ legal representatives. “Right now, the only thing that we are doing is acceding to the president’s request that one of my representatives meet with Basil Williams, which will happen, hopefully, next week,” he said.
He stressed that it was his intention when he asked for legal clarifications on the president’s declaration that the nominated candidates were unacceptable, that Granger would have had another view to consider besides that which he got from Williams.
“We have the confidence in the strength of our case and the history on this issue, we believe, is on our side to lead us to the belief that in any such confrontation our view will prevail on how the constitution is interpreted. So, when the president says he is clear about the constitution, I am also clear about its interpretation. And I am borne out of law and the intent of the amendment to the 1980 constitution to the current one, and I am borne out of practice and, therefore, we wanted to have an opportunity to share that view what the president,” he said. “We are going to await the engagement we have there before we decide on the new course of action,” he added.
‘On alert’
Calling on Guyana’s citizenry to become acquainted with the matter and be on alert for all future developments, Jagdeo opined that the situation has the potential to determine the country’s future in myriad ways if the talks ended in a stalemate and the president unilaterally chooses a chairperson.
“Many people have been calling me and they have many opinions. One is the president is getting bad advice from an incompetent Attorney-General and there is another view that the president intends, on this own, given his philosophy and history, to break with democratic tradition and appoint a chairman having paid lip service to the process using obscure legal arguments, appoint a chairman that is sympathetic to the PNC that will upset the balance at Gecom and convert Gecom to a tool of the PNC with the aim of rigging the elections in the future,” he said.
“If the first view is true… we were hoping to meet with the president not to have tea or have coffee or discuss a personal issue but to discuss a matter that involved our future. We are not begging for a meeting to go and see Granger and see how beautiful his office is. We believe, if the first view is relevant, that the meeting would have helped shape his opinion that there is a significant body out there that points to a direction different from what his Attorney-General is advising him on… if he goes unilaterally, we will have to challenge it… We have already been in the public domain on how we want to deal with the matter…,” he added.
‘Unnecessary tensions and mistrusts’
Burch-Smith said the GBA will remain impartial and wait to hear the Attorney General’s interpretation of the law on the matter as the PPP has already made its views known. “It is a bit surprising that there is controversy about it because it was considered fairly settled. Interpretations that have been given over the years have been consistent and settled. There isn’t enough explanation about the new interpretation being given, and I hope that someone would offer a detailed legal explanation about how this new interpretation has been arrived at,” he said.
“As a member of civil society, we would be very grateful for this to be over with very quickly. It creates unnecessary tensions and mistrusts, which may have the effect of undermining mistrusts in the democratic process, which our country could ill afford, especially after all the years of expensive elections and the sacrifices. We really need to move forward, so I would urge dialogue on the part of the political leaders to resolve this,” Burch-Smith added.
Hinds echoed his views, saying that the issue could slow or stymie the forward motion of the country’s democratic system and he urged the populace to call on Granger to not only act swiftly but to use the powers vested in him for the benefit of the entire nation. The PPP plans to base the bulk of its arguments on the fact that for the past 25 years there has been no problem in interpreting the constitution. And even as it believes that political tensions have already risen, Nandlall says he will reason with Williams using past selections as a reference as the two sides try to find a solution.
“In my view, having regard to our political history and from where the imbroglio has originated, these fears are not without foundation. After all, we have gone through the process of appointing a Chairman of the elections commission on five previous occasions over the past twenty-five years, using the identical constitutional formula. On each occasion, the exercise was completed with seamless ease and was devoid of any rancor or conflict. No one ever expressed the view that the language, spirit of intendment of Article 161 (2) of the Constitution were ambiguous or obscure. [Past President] Mr. Desmond Hoyte, a Senior Counsel, was shouldered with the constitutional duty of presenting four of those five lists, as the Opposition Leader. He appeared not to have ever encountered any difficulty in construing the constitutional requirements or compiling names for those lists.
“Over the years, he provided lists with names of Guyanese of diverse and disparate academic qualifications, technical skills and professional pursuits. On each occasion that he submitted such a list, the sitting president, without question, selected one person from the list submitted. Although profound legal and other controversies surrounded the 1992, 1997 and 2001 elections, all emanating from the political opposition, none touched or concerned the process by which the Chairman of the elections commission was appointed,” he added.
Granger has noted his desire to choose a candidate who is fit to be a judge, while saying that Article 161 emphasises a candidate who is a judge or is qualified to be a judge. Article 161 (2) of the constitution states, “Subject to the provisions of paragraph (4), the Chairman of the Elections Commission shall be a person who holds or who has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge, or any other fit and proper person, to be appointed by the President from a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition after meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly.”
