Anticipating the President’s intention to name members of constitutional commissions in the absence of “meaningful consultation”, Leader of the Opposition Aubrey Norton has signalled that he will challenge the appointments.
President Irfaan Ali, less than an hour after Norton issued the warning at his weekly press conference yesterday, swore in the members of the Police Service Commission and Integrity Commission.
Patrick Findlay, Mark Conway, Hakeem Mohammed and Ernesto Choo-a-Fat were appointed to the Police Service Commission while Dr Kim Kyte-Thomas, Chandra Gajraj, Mohamed Ispahani Haniff, Hardesh Tewari and Wayne Bowman will serve on the Integrity Commission.
The Opposition is now expected to challenge the appointments in the absence of “meaningful consultation” as outlined in the constitution. Yesterday, Norton said that his legal team is discussing and exploring all possible avenues.
He added that whenever a decision is arrived at, they will apprise the public as to the next move.
Under the laws of this country, the President and the Opposition Leader must hold consultations, guided by the respective clauses, for the appointment of the Commissioner of Police, Chancellor of the Judiciary, and Chief Justice.
The laws also stipulate that the President should consult with the Opposition Leader on the appointment of the Chair of the Police Service Commission.
The Integrity Commission Act also mandates consultation between the two leaders.
Additionally, Section 4(1) of the Act states “…the emoluments and other terms and conditions of appointment of the chairman and other members shall be such as may be determined by the President after consultation with the Minority Leader.”
It is clear that this did not happen since Ali went ahead with the appointments prior to any in-depth discussions with Norton on the nominees for Chair of the two commissions.
The two leaders met for the first time on May 13, 2022, after which they issued a joint statement committing to meeting again within a week. However, that meeting did not happen within the stipulated timeline and a meeting was scheduled for Monday, May 30 but Norton was unable to attend the meeting owing to prior commitments.
Following the first meeting, Norton requested the curriculum vitae of the proposed appointees to the commissions along with additional information. The CVs were supplied to him followed by a back and forth between the government and himself relating to the additional information he was seeking. Norton is adamant that the President must present the grounds on which the nominees were selected in order for an informed decision to be made.
However, the government, through Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira, has contended that President Ali is not mandated to provide any grounds and that he has complied with the constitution by providing the CVs of the appointees.
Yesterday, Norton told the media that “meaningful consultation” is defined by the constitution and the government has not satisfied the requirements. Referencing the Caribbean Court of Justice’s ruling in the case of the controversial appointment of retired Justice James Patterson as Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Norton said that the grounds for selecting the names must be provided by the President.
“The Opposition continues to point out that it is not yet in receipt of the grounds upon which each specific recommendation for appointment which is the subject of the consultation are being made. This state of affairs persists despite the Leader of the Opposition in his letter, dated the 11th day of May 2022 (stating) that the letter from Gail Teixeira was `bereft of any materials upon which I can form a considered opinion on the subjects of the proposed consultation.’ We insist that such grounds are necessary if there is to be meaningful consultation in keeping with the Constitution.
“…the CCJ virtually said that it [meaningful consultation] must be in good faith and they [the CCJ] tended to move away from this view that consultation is the mere provision of curriculum vitae, etc. and that for it to be meaningful, more information has to be provided. For instance, the grounds on which you recommend somebody. Now, I can tell you from just doing our work the government didn’t provide me with this [information],” Norton said.
He argued that time should also be given for the careful consideration of appointees to the constitutional posts adding that it has always been evident to the Opposition that the government is not interested in the concept of meaningful consultation.
“From the first day we arrived, it was evident that what they wanted to do is to say look these people, approved them [because] the President is in charge. Now there is no way I’m going to be Opposition Leader and operate in that way and so they might go ahead [and make the appointments]. I don’t know [but] they seem to want to go ahead but it will be challenged in the courts that is the bottom line.
“…because we know what is meaningful consultation. It is not a choice of the government to be involved in meaning for consultation, it is mandated by the constitution and therefore it should be done in keeping with the law,” Norton said less than hour before the President made the appointments.
Norton added that the party is prepared to take the blame for causing the delay in the appointment of the various commissions just to ensure that the constitution is followed.
“Now, if the government wants to violate the constitution, we have to challenge it. But we hope good sense will prevail and the government will recognize that their actions will affect our people adversely,” he said.
…party activists
The Opposition Leader said that the government is not interested in democracy but rather total control and domination contending that their investigations have shown that party activists are being appointed to the commissions. He said that the Opposition, during its perusal of the names proposed for the Teaching Service Commission, discovered the name of a PPP activist in Region 10.
“Now if we’re talking about independent institutions how could I, on behalf of the Guyanese people, accept a PPP activist that will obviously have an axe to grind with people in communities as a representative on the Teaching Service Commission?
“…I don’t want to reject people just for the sake of rejecting [but] of course I will reject any political activist being on an independent commission. Because independent should mean independence and you know full well that all the PPP does is seek to fill these institutions with people that they could dominate and control,” Norton argued.
He added that they are concerned with others on the list but refused to provide any further detail.
…too little time
On Monday, President Ali and Norton were supposed to meet to follow up on the initial meeting but the latter was unable to make it. Norton said that the notice of the meeting was too short and he had prior commitments.
During a Facebook live video on Monday at the time the meeting was to be held, Ali accused Norton of “unwillingness” and “immaturity” in dealing with issues of national importance.
At yesterday’s press conference, Norton told reporters that he had been in communication with Minister Teixeira but will no longer engage her and has appointed Roysdale Forde as his representative. He noted that will allow him more time to focus on the matters at hand.
Providing a timeline of events that led to Monday’s no-show at the meeting, Norton explained that Teixeira’s letter arrived at Congress Place after 4:30 pm on Friday, May 27, 2022, informing him of the meeting on Monday, May 30, 2022.
In the letter, Teixeira informed that “…you must be aware that Guyana hosted the first Agri-Investment Forum and Expo on May 19th – 21st, 2022 which was attended by eight (8) Heads of State along with 400 other dignitaries from across the Caribbean, North America, Europe and Africa. This massive international event was closely followed by the national and regional celebrations of our 56th Independence Anniversary.”
The explanation proffered by Teixeira, was in response to the President’s failure to honour his commitment to meet with Norton one week after the May 13 engagement.
“The excuses proffered are devoid of credibility and disconcerting, as the President must surely have known when he was making the Agreement that he had those engagements as they were certainly planned in advance of the commencement of the consultations before our engagement. These actions are indicators of the manifestation of incompetence or a disregard for the President and other constitutional responsibilities,” Norton told the media yesterday.
Teixeira’s letter concluded “You are hereby invited to meet His Excellency the President on Monday, May 30th, 2022 at 2:00 pm at the Office of the President. However, in the event, you are unable to attend this meeting you may wish to indicate in writing your additional contributions to this consultation.”
During his Facebook live video on Monday, Ali accused Norton of not responding to the letter of invitation.
When questioned about his response, Norton told Stabroek News yesterday that he was out of town during the weekend doing political work and when he came back into the office, he immediately began working on a response.
“I had the [Monday] morning to deal with it. Now you know these letters have got to be properly crafted. When you’re dealing with people like the PPP you have to skillfully craft your letters and that is not done in an hour or two,” he explained.
He added that they also consulted with the other parties in the coalition and then dispatched a response.
According to Norton, the letter was at the Office of the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance at 1:45 pm on Monday – 15 minutes before the start of the meeting.
“Deliberately, they [Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance] didn’t put the time that they received it and [when] I saw this morning [the response] letter, I saw the dishonesty because a much later time was placed. So I can say to you, it arrived before the scheduled time for the meeting,” Norton stated.
In a letter dated May 30, 2022, but received on May 31, Teixeira informed Norton that she received his letter at approximately 2:15 pm on Monday and his inability to respond to the invitation in a timely manner is “highly regrettable.”
She added, “My letter did not purport to offer any excuse of any kind to you but to simply place on record two significant national events in which His Excellency was constructively engaged.”
The letter concluded by informing Norton that the President complied with the letter and the spirit of the constitution. It did not indicate that the President will go ahead and make the appointments.
Outside of your responsibilities
In his May 12, 2022 letter to Teixeira, Norton informed that he is prepared to agree to the appointment of Justices Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Roxane George-Wiltshire as Chancellor and Chief Justice, respectively.
However, Teixeira indicated that the government is not ready to move ahead with those discussions as yet.
The long absence of substantive appointments to the top judicial posts has been repeatedly commented on by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), the Guyana Bar Association and other sections of the legal fraternity. Several weeks ago, President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders voiced his hope that the substantive appointments could be made before the end of the year.
“Your statement that the President is not prepared at this time to engage in consultations on this matter of supreme Constitutional importance comes over as a gross dereliction of his Constitutional duty and a clear indication that he is non-responsive to the concerns of Civil Society and the people of Guyana,” Norton said in his May 30 letter.
In response, Teixeira said that the decision is not Norton’s to make as to when discussions surrounding the appointments will occur.
“I have already made it abundantly clear in previous correspondences that the appointment of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice were never and are not part of these consultations and that in any event, it is the President who initiates the relevant processes both under the constitution and the law, wherever His Excellency is empowered to appoint. In this regard, you have hopelessly misconstrued your role in relation to appointments to these important constitutional offices,” she said.
She also reiterated that the law does not provide for the president to give reasons for his nominations.
