Dear Editor,
The United Republican Party, in the person of its Chairman, recently sought to admonish “the now opposition appointed commissioners” for their offensive and magical behaviour in relation to their response to the motion to have Lowenfield, Myers and Mingo dismissed.
He contends that we are using delaying tactics. It is clear that the good Doctor is cockeyed. He sees us as delaying a motion tabled on June 1, 2021 but has nothing to say about the Director of Public Prosecutions who after one year has still not started the prosecution of the substantive cases that are premised on the said whereas clauses that the motions proffered.
Like the ‘now government appointed commissioners’ he is “committed to pursuing the dismissal of the CEO, DCEO and RO”. He has already determined guilt and decided on the same penalty as the aforementioned Commissioners. Ironically, he also declares that his party “remains a party for the people and more so for justice to be dealt fairly”.
Exactly therein lies the issue. The ‘now government appointed commissioners’ seem not to know or don’t care to know that even in the instance where the Constitution empowers the Commission to remove staff, the legal system, of which the Constitution is the foundation, requires that any removal be done fairly. That means that the Rules/Principles of Natural Justice should apply. Those Rules require that the Officers should be given a hearing, as has been determined by the Chairperson. It also means that that hearing should be free of bias. How can the Commissioners who have already, by virtue of the content of their motions and public statements, declared the Officers guilty and have even predetermined the penalty, be the prosecutors and adjudicators in the same cases? Their bias is not perceived. It has been declared.
In those circumstances the “now opposition appointed commissioners” will not be party to a flawed process. We see Dr. Kanhai`s call as an embrace of the transgression of Natural Justice and will not be party to any such action. Dr. Kanhai and his ilk are the ones who need to close the gap between their rhetoric about Justice and their call for action. For us, the position that we have taken has nothing to do with the substantive motion. We are demanding that the prescribed procedures be followed as Dr. Kanhai et al demanded, in the instance of the first election petition. They can’t be allowed to shift the goal post to achieve their predetermined result.
Dr. Kanhai should note that his revered Commissioners have since sought to amend their motions to avoid the inevitable ruling that they are biased and cannot participate in any such hearing. They are now calling for termination under the contractual provision, which provides for either party to terminate the contract by simply giving due notice. According to Commissioner Shadick`s public statement, ‘we want them out at any cost’.
On another note, Dr. Kanhai`s reference to the absence of two Commissioners from the initial meeting as a “disappearance” is very disrespectful. First, we did not disappear. We gave due notice of our attendance of the funeral of the late Winston Bentham. Secondly, matters of bereavement should not be the subject of politicking. Respect is due to the dead. I hope our “new” breed of politicians are guided by such precepts and practices.
Yours sincerely
Vincent Alexander
GECOM Commissioner
