Dear Editor,
I refer to the current unwarranted attacks on the legitimate appointment of Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) representatives’ as members of the Public Service Commission (PSC).
The Constitution of Guyana states in Article 8:
“This Constitution is the supreme law of Guyana and, if any other law is inconsistent with it, that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
Secondly, the Parliament of Guyana determined who the GPSU representatives on the PSC should be in accordance with the Constitution. Article 200 (b) stipulates it should be, “two members appointed by the President upon nomination by the National Assembly after it has consulted such bodies as appear to it to represent public officers or classes of public officers.”
Thirdly, Patrick Yarde’s elevation as Deputy Chairperson of the PSC was done in accordance with the Constitution.
Article 200 (2) says, “The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Commission shall be elected by and from the members of the Commission using such consensual mechanism as the Commission deems fit.”
His subsequent elevation to acting Chairperson was also in accordance with the Constitution as is evident from Article 200 (5): “If the office of Chair-person of the PSC is vacant or the holder thereof is for any reason unable to perform the functions of his or her office, one of the other members may be elected to act in the office of Chairperson.”
Fourthly, Article 198 (1) states:
“The members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) shall be-
… “(c) the Chairman of the Public Service Commission”.
Based on the above it is clear what was done is in accordance with the Constitution, the supreme authority. It is therefore, disconcerting to see inappropriate comments on this matter are accommodated and published repeatedly.
Public servants having a right of redress. The decisions of the PSC were unconditionally supported by the GPSU from the inception, even though the union enjoyed the privilege of having a member on the PSC. So committed was the GPSU to this position that representation was made to the late President LFS Burnham, resulting in an amendment to the Constitution for the creation of a Public Service Appellate Tribunal (PSAT) in 1984, to facilitate all public servants seeking redress where they were displeased with the decisions of the PSC.
Again, I wish to emphasise that the establishment of the PSAT was pursued successfully by the GPSU, regardless of the fact that it had a nominee on the PSC, in order to reinforce justice and fair play in these matters.
The non-appointment of the PSAT by the President of Guyana commencing with Bharrat Jagdeo, has always been a concern of the GPSU, and it is public record that the GPSU protested, advocating the appointment of the PSAT, including in 2017, while Mr Yarde was acting Chairperson of the PSC. The GPSU wholeheartedly welcomed the appointment of the PSAT by President Granger; this was publicly stated by Patrick Yarde after the swearing in of the members of the tribunal.
It appears most ironical that one who has been in the vanguard of these achievements for justice and fair play and who, individually as a member of the PSC, has no power to make any decision on behalf of the PSC, is being singled out for personal attacks. The only conclusion one could come to is that these persons are narrow minded, petty and have a grudge.
Conflict of interest seems to be the buzz word. Mr Yarde mentioned to the Executive Council members on Friday May 19, that after a meeting of the Dependent Pension Fund Board held the day before, Prof Harold Lutchman raised the issue of conflict of interest with him, which he dismissed. Prof Lutchman then told Mr Yarde that the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the Public Service had some recommendations with respect to the PSC. Mr Yarde reminded him that the CoI’s recommendations were not fully supported by the GPSU. In fact, it should be noted that the GPSU had publicly stated that it did not agree with some of the recommendations of the CoI.
The Professor then told Mr Yarde that he was certain that his position as Chairman (ag) of the PSC would be challenged as one of conflict of interest. It seems as though Prof Lutchman was privy to some information, since only a few days later we saw all these criticisms in the print media.
Why all this brouhaha? Freddie Kissoon mentioned instances of judges recusing themselves from cases where they may have an interest, and said that the same could be done in the case of the Chairman of the PSC.
If public servants do not agree with any decision of the PSC they can always seek redress from the PSAT whose members are not PSC Commissioners.
Mr Earl John has branched into an area of no concern to him in his letter captioned ‘We are caught in an injudicious system’ (Stabroek News, May 25). He needs to check the Constitution to become acquainted with the composition of both the PSC and JSC. The fact that Mr John is dumbfounded by the action of President Granger in appointing the acting Chairman of the PSC to the JSC speaks poorly of him, and exposes his double standards and his bias against working class people and trade unions. The Constitution clearly states how the Chairman of the PSC is to be elected and the members of the JSC appointed.
On the occasion of this 51st Independence Anniversary of our nation there ought to be expressions of enlightenment and upliftment in pursuit of harmony, unity and sustainable development, on which I am certain that all open minded and forward thinking Guyanese would focus.
Yours faithfully,
Dawn Gardener
