Voters can be forgiven if they regard the local politicians as tiresome. They must wonder whether there will ever be any progress on the political front when the parties who represent them are so resistant to compromise and so disposed to pettiness. Since the lives of the Judicial Service Commission, the Police Service Commission, the Teaching Service Commission and the Integrity Commission have expired, consultation is required between the President and the Leader of the Opposition on various appointees before they can be reconstituted. In addition to that, “meaningful consultation” between the two is mandated in order for anyone to be appointed to the posts of Police Commissioner, Chancellor and Chief Justice.
In our fractious circumstances it is not a formula obviously designed to achieve results, but unless the provisions in our Constitution, or in the case of the Integrity Commission, our statutes, are reformed, that is what we have to live with. In such circumstances everyone hopes that the head of state and his opposition counterpart would rise above the rancour which has characterised the history of their two parties, and come to agreement on critical appointments on which the effective functioning of society depends.
The Teaching Service Commission, after all, is responsible for the appointment, promotion and dismissal of teachers, among other things, in non-board schools, and its absence represents a huge setback to the efficient running of our institutions of learning and the education of our children. Then there is the situation in our courts which suffer from a serious deficit of judges, a problem which cannot be addressed until there is a Justice Service Commission in place. As it is there is an unacceptable backlog of cases waiting to be called, many of which are not heard for years giving special meaning to the saying ‘Justice delayed is justice denied.’ The absence of a Police Service Commission and Integrity Commission speak for themselves.
The expectation is that the real issue of contention between the two leaders will come in relation to the posts of Chancellor, Chief Justice and Police Commissioner. All of them are currently filled by acting appointments made by the President, the last named producing considerable controversy. Those appointed to these positions, more especially the first two, are expected to act independently, but independence is compromised by the fact that when they are acting they owe their positions to the head of state alone. The top two judicial posts have not been filled substantively for years, in the case of the Chancellor, for seventeen years. It is a situation which has produced criticism from two Presidents of the Caribbean Court of Justice.
The prognostications were not good when President Irfaan Ali first came to office because he refused to meet then Leader of the Opposition Joseph Harmon until APNU+AFC recognised his government as legitimate. It was an irrational as well as an unconstitutional stance, since the Constitution does not stipulate any requirements preliminary to consultation. This situation obtained for more than a year, and when the head of state finally came around to making it known that he would meet his constitutional obligations, APNU was in disarray and Mr Harmon resigned.
However, it looked as if there could be some advance when Mr Aubrey Norton was finally elected Opposition Leader, following which President Ali indicated he was inviting him for consultations. This caused the nation to heave a collective sigh of relief, although somewhat prematurely, as it turned out, because thereafter matters descended into the customary political tangle. First Mr Norton announced that any discussions with the President would not be confined to constitutional and statutory appointments, but would also have to include other matters. When asked how he would proceed if the agenda was restricted, he replied that he was of the view that President Ali was “a reasonable man”, but that if it was indeed confined then he would “deal with it at that time.”
In the event following an invitation sent on April 29 by the President, the two met on May 13 and it did indeed concern appointments to commissions, although whether Mr Norton raised his other concerns as well was not revealed. What the public was told was that the Leader of the Opposition requested that the curriculum vitae of the proposed appointees be provided to him prior to future discussions, and that the President acceded to this. “We agreed to engage,” Mr Norton told the media; “We have now engaged and agreed that documents would be provided to us.” It was also said that they were to meet again.
It was at a press conference a few days later, however, that a sour note was introduced into the story of the encounter. Hosting his first press conference as Leader of the Opposition, where he raised issues related to the election laws as well as commenting on the May 13 meeting, Mr Norton said that while he had received “some” CVs, other materials were still outstanding which was not in keeping with the concept of meaningful consultation. It was Mr Roysdale Forde who expanded on this theme; as Shadow AG he had accompanied the Opposition Leader to the meeting. “The opposition insists and demands that it expects that the consultation must be in strict compliance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution,” Mr Forde was quoted as saying.
Referring to relevant provisions in the Constitution Mr Forde went on to say, inter alia, that the persons or entities to be consulted should be identified and the subject of the consultation and its intended date specified; the party providing the information was required to provide all the material and the grounds on which the recommendations were being made; adequate time had to be given for the party being consulted to respond so it could take the necessary steps to tender meaningful advice; and meaningful consultation under the Constitution meant full, effective and genuine engagement as opposed to a formal and unproductive one.
His conclusion was that the consultation process had “not been in accordance with the requirements of meaningful consultation.” He then set forth the sequence of events which in his view demonstrated his assertions.
The PPP/C was not about to let all of this pass unremarked, and it disputed the claims about receipt of documentation and the like. In a statement the party said, “Mr Norton was woefully unprepared for the meeting, despite being informed of the agenda and despite the fact that his own Coalition was involved in the Parliamentary process to arrive at the recommendations for the persons to be appointed to the Com-missions, for example, the Police Service Commission (PSC).” It went on to say that now all of the information had been provided to the Opposition Leader, there should be no delay in arriving at a consensus to appoint the constitutional bodies.
All of this is most unfortunate. It is one thing to have press conferences following a breakdown of negotiations with each side giving their account of what occurred and why, but quite another to have an acrimonious dispute before proper discussions are even underway. Once that is in the public domain it becomes a major cause of resentment which can squash any hope of accord. It doesn’t matter if the government was not as efficient as it should be; Freedom House always had a tendency to be casual where precision was required. Its inefficiency does not mean, however, that it did not go into the talks with a serious intent, and it is unacceptable for the opposition to accuse them of what amounts effectively to bad faith before substantial exchanges have even started. The government will certainly be pilloried if in the event it makes no reasonable concessions to the opposition.
These negotiations will inevitably be difficult, requiring diplomacy, tact, skill and a commitment to compromise. Diplomacy is not Mr Norton’s primary talent, neither, it seems, is it Mr Forde’s, while compromise has never really been in the lexicon of the PPP/C. But if either side is serious about moving this country forward they need to overcome this hurdle of constitutional and statutory appointments; the matter will not hold any longer, and the electorate is tired of waiting.
APNU+AFC should have stuck with the joint statement crafted following the May 13 meeting, and kept any reservations from becoming public until a later stage when an impasse was looming. The public does not want to know about who said what, when, or which documents were supplied at what stage and to whom; what they want to know is that the two leaders are making progress. There will be time enough for recriminations if they don’t.
