Over the weekend, communication between representatives of the President and Leader of the Opposition ended without a meeting set and saw a proposal by the government’s side that retired Justice Claudette La Bennett and GPHC Chairman Kesaundra Alves be on the list for chairmanship of GECOM, sources say.
“No time or date for a meeting at this point and time but we have had correspondence with them over the weekend,” Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo told Stabroek News yesterday.
Jagdeo said that he will today address the issue in detail at a press conference.
Sources told this newspaper that both sides communicated via correspondence over the weekend as Director General of the Ministry of the Presidency, Joseph Harmon wrote to Jagdeo through PPP Executive Gail Teixeira and she replied.
The Opposition Leader had written to President David Granger’s team expressing that in keeping with the President’s word that he was committed to the selection of a Chairman soonest, that a meeting date be proposed over the weekend.
However, government did not respond to that correspondence but sent a letter proposing that Alves and La Bennett be added to a list of six persons that Jagdeo would submit to the President.
Both La Bennett and Alves were suggested by the President when he last week gave a list of eight persons for consideration to Jagdeo. There were recently resigned Chair-man Justice James Patterson, La Bennett, Alves, Stanley Ming, Dr. Aubrey Armstrong, Kadim ‘Kads’ Khan, Kim Kyte-Thomas, and Stanley Moore.
In an address to the nation following consequential orders by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Friday, Granger said “elections have to be held in the shortest possible time and, therefore, it is crucial to appoint a chairman of the Elections Commission.”
He went on to state that such an appointment could be done as early as today if the opposition was prepared to act in a consensual manner and in good faith. Jagdeo, through Teixeira, then wrote Granger on Friday evening to convey his availability to meet at any time and throughout the weekend to work on a list of names for consideration for appointment to the post in accordance with the constitution.
Teixeira on Saturday said a response had been received from Harmon and she was in the process of responding. Neither Harmon’s letter nor Teixeira’s response has been made public.
Article 161(2) of the Constitution, which provides for the appointment of the GECOM Chairperson, says the office holder is 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.
In its ruling last Friday, the CCJ referred to the views expressed at paragraphs 26 – 29 of its June 18 judgment on the GECOM matter as a suitable frame of reference for the process leading to such an appointment.
Paragraph 26 says, “The requirement for ‘meaningful consultation’ between the Leader of the Opposition and the non-governmental political parties that may be represented in the National Assembly is clear and needs little elaboration. What is not so clear is the process that should be followed to accommodate the spirit of consensus that must prevail between the President and the Leader of the Opposition. The Constitution envisages that this process will culminate in a list of six names being presented to the President, none of whom is unacceptable to the President. This ultimately gives the President the opportunity to select any one of those six persons as Chairman. The question is how do these two constitutional actors interact with each other so as to arrive at that culmination? We are of the view that the most sensible approach is that before a list is submitted, the Leader of the Opposition and the President must communicate with each other in good faith on, and perhaps even meet to discuss, eligible candidates for the position of Chair-man. The aim of these discussions must be to agree [to] the names of six persons who fit the stated eligibility requirements and who are not unacceptable to the President. In this regard, the Constitution anticipates that the Leader of the Opposition and the President will conduct themselves in a reasonable and responsible manner, eschew partisanship and seek the best interests of the Republic and the Guyanese people.”
Further, paragraph 27 states, “In our view, employment of the double negative, ‘not unacceptable’, signals that an onus is placed on the President not to find a nominee unacceptable merely because the nominee is not a choice the President would have himself made. The President should only find a nominee unacceptable for some good reason on objective grounds. If a President were permitted, capriciously or whimsically, without proffering a good reason, to reject eligible nominees, this would frustrate the proper working of the Constitution, defeat the intention behind the amendment to Article 161(2) and pave the way for unilateral presidential appointment.”
