One in four people in Africa, or approximately 130 million people, pay bribes to access services, such as health care and education, according to the tenth edition of Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) – Africa. Additionally, more than half of all citizens surveyed in 35 African countries believe that corruption is getting worse in their countries, and their governments are doing little or nothing to address the problem. The report also highlighted that corruption disproportionately affects the most vulnerable, with the poorest paying bribes twice as often as the richest. Patricia Moreira, Managing Director of Transparency International (TI), sums it up:
Corruption is hindering Africa’s economic, political and social development. It is a major barrier to economic growth, good governance and basic freedoms, like freedom of speech or citizens’ right to hold governments to account. While governments have a long way to go in regaining citizens’ trust and reducing corruption, these things don’t exist in a vacuum. Foreign bribery and money laundering divert critical resources away from public services, and ordinary citizens suffer most.
TI is urging the governments in Africa to put anti-corruption commitments into practice and to:
√ Investigate, prosecute and sanction all reported cases of corruption in both
the public and the private sector, with no exception;
√ Develop minimum standards and guidelines for ethical procurement and build
strong procurement practice throughout the continent with training, monitoring
and research;
√ Adopt open contracting practices, which make data and documentation clearer
and easier to analyse and ensure transparency in hiring procedures;
√ Create mechanisms to collect citizens’ complaints and strengthen whistleblower
protection to ensure that citizens can report instances of corruption without fear of
reprisal;
√ Enable media and civil society to hold governments accountable;
√ Support transparency in political party funding;
√ Allow cross border cooperation to combat corruption;
√ Establish public registers that name the owners of shell companies and adopt and
enforce laws that address stolen assets; and
√ Effectively and transparently implement the highest international anti-corruption
and anti-money laundering standards for business leaders and boards of
companies, including multinational companies operating in Africa.
(For further details, please refer to the report to be found at:
In our 15 July 2019 article, we outlined the consequential orders that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) issued to give effect to its rulings on the vote of no confidence in the Government and on the appointment of the Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). In relation to the latter, the CCJ considered that there was no longer a need to issue an order since Justice (Ret’d) James Patterson, whose appointment it had deemed flawed and in breach of the Constitution, had already resigned. The CCJ, however, emphasized that the process for the appointment of a new chairman should be embarked upon with ‘the utmost urgency’. In this regard, the CCJ suggested that the most sensible approach is, before a list is submitted, is that:
The Leader of the Opposition and the President must communicate with each other in good faith, and perhaps even meet to discuss, eligible candidates for the position of Chairman…The Constitution anticipates that the Leader of the Opposition and the President conduct themselves in a reasonable and responsible manner, eschew partisanship and seek the best interests of the Republic and the Guyanese people. (Paragraph 26)
‘Gridlock’ in the appointment of GECOM Chair
The Opposition Leader had submitted a list of eleven names for the President to consider for the appointment of GECOM Chair. These names were extracted from the three lists that he had previously submitted. However, this revised list remained contaminated with the names of some persons who have shown political alignment or preference, and/or are closely associated leadership of the opposition party. The President returned the compliment by submitting to the Opposition Leader a similar list containing the names of eight persons some of whom are closely associated with the ruling party and were either former Members of Parliament or Ministers of the Government. What came as a surprise was the inclusion of Justice Patterson. Correspondence subsequently received by the Opposition Leader indicated the President’s desire to have two of its nominees, not including the former Chairman, placed on the list to be presented to him.
Article 161(2), however, does not envisage the President submitting a list of names to the Opposition Leader for inclusion in the list to be submitted to him (the President), as this would defeat the purpose of the said article which is to enable the Opposition Leader, in consultation with the other non-governmental political parties in the National Assembly, to present a list of six names to the President, not unacceptable to him. It is from this list that the President is required to choose who should be the Chair of GECOM. While the President may suggest names to the Opposition Leader, it appears inappropriate, indeed it does not stand to reason, for the President to insist on certain names being placed on the list from which he (the President) will make the selection. If that were the case, the President would become both a proposer and the decider! In the circumstances, Article 161(2) would be rendered meaningless.
The recently formed political party, A New and United Guyana (ANUG), took the President to task for submitting a list of eight names for the GECOM Chairmanship, including that of Justice Patterson as well as ‘persons with well-known ties with his political party’. It emphasised that in view of the CCJ’s ruling that government’s status is that of a caretaker, no new laws can be passed, nor new contracts signed. ANUG further stated:
Throughout the year, we have seen acts of defiance by the President and his government particularly towards the rule of law. We saw the President and his cabinet refusing to resign upon the passage of a no-confidence vote, then a refusal to uphold the High court’s ruling, and again, the CCJ’s ruling to meaningfully (consult) with the leader of the opposition on the establishment of a list of credible and appropriate names for the position of GECOM Chair. (Stabroek News, 17 July 2019)
Calling on the President and Leader of the Opposition to put the country first and come to a consensus on the best possible candidate to chair the elections commission, ANUG asserted that the delay in coming to an agreement ‘sends a strong message that we would prefer a divided country than one where there is public confidence in a system built on democracy…This is not in the best interest of anyone in Guyana, except those who currently occupy the seat of Government’.
Following the 12 July 2019 CCJ pronouncement, the President stated that ‘within the next few days’ he would be in position to appoint a chairperson, provided an agreement was reached with the Opposition Leader on the list of six names. The two leaders met on 16 July 2019, and a joint statement was issued thereafter which indicated that four names on the Opposition Leader’s list were not unacceptable to the President. At another meeting held the following day, the Opposition Leader rejected the two names that the President had submitted. He also presented an additional four names to be included with the other four names that the President considered not unacceptable.
The President subsequently spoke of an apparent misunderstanding of the CCJ’s ruling which he contended provided him with a role in arriving at the six names for the position of the Chair of GECOM. He indicated that he would resist all attempts to deny him that role and asserted that ‘[u]nless we accept that principle, we would end up in gridlock and that is what we’re heading for if the Opposition continues to deny the President a role in hammering out that list’. The President further stated:
It is very important that we pay attention to the spirit and the letter of the consequential orders; that is to say the President must be given, not may be given, a role and it means that I have to be involved in the selection of nominees before those nominees come back to me. It is no longer a one-sided affair, it is no longer unilateral; it is consensual and both government and the opposition have to be involved. (Demerara Waves, 19 July 2019)
The CCJ used the word “must” in relation to communication between himself and the Opposition Leader. It is unclear whether this means having a role in selecting the nominees to be included in the list of six names. Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall asserted that:
The CCJ never intended — and simply could not have intended — to invest the President with a power to submit names to the Leader of the Opposition. Any interpretation of the CCJ judgement which lends to that conclusion is an interpretation that is irrational, capricious, whimsical, and absolutely ignorant of the provisions of Article 161 of the Constitution and the intention placed upon it by the CCJ.
Former House Speaker, Ralph Ramkarran, expressed a similar view:
The President seeks to elevate phrases such as “perhaps even meet to discuss eligible names,” “hammering out a list of names” and giving “the President a role in the identification of the six names,” as meaning that he has a right to nominate names which, once nominated, must be included on the list of six. If this is not the correct interpretation of the President’s view and if the President is not seeking the unfettered right to choose the Chair of GECOM, why should there be gridlock? The President has a “role,” not a right. (Stabroek News, 21 July 2019)
Our own assessment is that the President’s role in the process of appointing the GECOM Chair is a dual one. He has to first decide whether the list of six names submitted to him by the Opposition Leader is acceptable to him. Once the President signals his acceptance of the list, it is then left entirely to his discretion and based on his own deliberate judgment, to select one person from the list to be GECOM Chair.
Unlocking the ‘gridlock’
Much to the relief of all Guyanese, the stalemate in the appointment of GECOM Chair was finally brought to an end last Friday when the Opposition Leader submitted a final list of six names which the President found not unacceptable to him. Included in the list was Justice Claudette Singh whom the President selected as the Chair of GECOM. The diplomatic missions of the United States, the UK and Canada welcomed her appointment, with the U.S. Embassy urging ‘continued collaboration towards free and fair elections’.
Last Friday’s dialogue between the President and the Opposition Leader and its outcome, could have taken place some 29 months ago when the former GECOM Chairman Dr. Steve Surujbally resigned. During this intervening period, the nation was made to witness the unfortunate spectacle of our two political leaders battling it out tooth and nail, each wanting to have his own way in the selection of GECOM Chair, despite clear guidance provided by the Constitution. One hopes that what played out since March 2017 is never again allowed to happen.
On this score, it is our sincere hope that any future amendment to the Constitution should ensure that a truly independent Elections Commission is in place, free of political influence and control. This will make the task of chairing the Commission less burdensome, compared with what currently prevails. We wish Justice Claudette Singh well in her new role.
