Dear Editor,
On Tuesday October 26, 2020, I noticed a post on social media indicating that Attorney General Mr Anil Nandlall and ANUG Chair Mr Timothy Jonas were appointed as Senior Counsel (SC) by the President with effect from October 30th. As Guyanese, including myself, started to offer their congratulations, my mind immediately flashed back to the case that Mr Jonas has brought before the High Court challenging the legality of appointment of four SCs by President David Granger on the grounds that such authority exists with the judiciary and not with the President.
I immediately drew this apparent contradiction to readers, who produced several explanations, including the response that Mr Jonas was moved to take such action because Mr Granger was a Caretaker President and had no standing to make such an appointment. I insisted that was not the reason and sent a copy of the Stabroek News’ article on the case. On the following day, Mr Jonas was congratulated by the GlobeSpan Moderator Dr Vishnu Bisram, who appeared puzzled when Mr Jonas’ response reflected ambivalence over the appointment. While he said that he was contacted before and agreed to accept a SC honour, he nevertheless conceded that was contingent upon the requisite approval by the Judiciary. In a letter to Stabroek News on October 30, 2020, Mr Jonas sought to clarify his position.
Mr Jonas writes that the grant of silk (SC) which “used to be exercised by the Queen, has now in Guyana passed to the judiciary, and any involvement by the Executive is ceremonial, subject always to the imprimatur of the Judiciary.” He did not say when that authority was passed onto the Judiciary. He continues: “politicization of the process and lack of transparency reduce public confidence, and cheapen the process itself.” The perception conveyed is that Mr Jonas is committed to legal procedures, non-politicization, and transparency, and that the process was politicized and not transparent.
Despite the fact that his appointment was made in consultation with the Judiciary (and Mr Jonas himself says “the legal requirements identified by me had been met”) Mr Jonas was still skeptical and indicates that he will wait until a ruling is delivered in the case that is before the High Court. Mr Jonas has also written the Judiciary requesting that the Full Court take no further action in his regard until the Court rules.
Did Mr Jonas’ purported appointment present an opportunity for him to highlight a role of moral gatekeeper of Guyanese politics? Was his action appropriate having been assured that the appointment has the imprimatur of the Judiciary?
Mr Nandall says in his Court submission that (i) the President, as the Supreme Executive Authority of Guyana, is vested with the exclusive prerogative to confer Silk upon attorneys-at-law; (ii) the prerogative or power to confer Silk was never vested in the judiciary of Guyana; and (iii) the President’s prerogative to confer Silk does not infringe on judicial independence, nor is it unconstitutional in any other way.
While Mr Jonas still believes that the Judiciary has the authority to confer SCs, and that the role of the executive is ceremonial, Mr Nandlall reminds us that the grant of all honours, including SCs, is the prerogative of the President. A review of court filing document (020-HC-DEM-CIV-FDA-627) reveals that Mr Nandlall has produced several precedents to support his position that the President is the proper authority to confer SCs, as all other honours, while acknowledging that the consent of the High Court adds credibility to the occasion.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Tara Singh
