Politicians seem to exist in a world of their own invention that bears little correspondence to the reality which confronts ordinary citizens. Yet these are the people whom the voters have invested with the authority to govern the country. It is, admittedly, not a simple challenge, since the electorate is far from unanimous about what it wants, and the rules under which the movers and shakers of this land have to operate are neither simple nor even always straightforward. That said, at least the public is entitled to expect a measure of rationality in how they approach their duties.
Rationality, however, has been in abeyance in this land for the last few weeks, with the politicians indulging in some kind of pointless stand-off which makes little sense to anyone outside their circle. There we were with no substantive Chancellor or Chief Justice, no Judicial Service Commission, no Police Service Commission, no Teaching Service Commission and no Integrity Commission, as a consequence of which some of the critical business of the country was obstructed since some appointments to these bodies require the input of the Leader of the Opposition and not just the President. Does anyone really have to explain to those who operate in the political sphere why we need judges, teachers and senior police ranks?
What has been demonstrated is that the fifty-year struggle between our two major parties will trump any other issue, no matter how critical that might be (Venezuela arguably excepted). President Irfaan Ali, who has a tendency to substitute slogans like ‘One Guyana’ for policy and action, avoided his constitutional duty by refusing to meet the then Leader of the Opposition on the matter of appointments unless he recognised the government as legitimate.
He persisted in this unconstitutional stance for more than a year, and finally when he relented and announced himself prepared to meet Mr Joe Harmon, the latter resigned as Opposition Leader. APNU was then in disarray for a considerable time, and it is only recently that Mr Aubrey Norton has been elected to the post, thereby allowing for the possibility of the constitutional requirements being fulfilled.
After some unhelpful preliminaries the two leaders finally met on May 13th, following which they issued a joint press statement. Through this the public learned that prior to the meeting the Leader of the Opposition had requested details of the appointments to be made, which were then supplied and related to the four commissions. He had also earlier asked for other information which he clarified at the meeting was the curricula vitae of those under consideration. The statement said the President agreed to make those available within two days, going on to say: “It was further agreed that the consultations will be guided by the Constitution and the in-person consultations will resume on a date to be fixed, but within a week.”
If that sounded like modest progress it turned out to be anything but. In the first place no meeting took place within the week, neither within two weeks, and in the meantime Mr Norton let it be known that he wanted the President to give the grounds for his choices. Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira through whom the arrangements were being handled could barely mask her impatience and said that the head of state was not required to justify his choices, which indeed he isn’t. In any case, those are the kinds of exchanges which, if needed, would take place within the context of the meeting itself.
The delay in meeting again without the courtesy of an apology caused the Opposition Leader to cast doubt on the government’s true intentions, an allegation which was answered in kind. Eventually an invitation was received by Mr Norton on May 27th for a meeting on the 30th. In the event he couldn’t attend, said the letter, he was invited to send his views in writing. He did in fact not attend on the grounds that the notice was short and he had other commitments. The head of state responded in unpresidential style on Facebook, accusing the Opposition Leader of “unwillingness” and “immaturity” in dealing with matters of national importance.
This post did not do President Ali any credit, since it conveyed the impression that he believed only the Leader of the Opposition should follow the conventions in these matters, but that for his part he was under no obligation to apologise for his failure to abide by the agreement made in the meeting of May 13th. Now if it is indeed the case, as Mr Norton maintains, that the government was not acting in good faith when the two sides met, particularly when it proposed the time-frame of “within a week” for the next meeting, then it would have to be concluded that he played into the President’s hands by not turning up on the 30th.
In any event the President’s next move was unilaterally to appoint the Police Service and Integrity Commissions, whose members were sworn in on the last day of May. The case of the Integrity Commission is less problematic, because it is not a constitutional commission and only requires “consultation” with the Leader of the Opposition for its members to be appointed. Perhaps the government will seek to argue that since they invited Mr Norton to give his views by letter, and he had not responded, he had effectively been consulted.
The Police Service Commission, however, is a different story. While four members of that Commission are nominated by the National Assembly, (that has already happened) the Chairman is appointed by the President after “meaningful consultation” with the Opposition Leader. In addition the Police Commissioner and his deputy (or deputies) are appointed after “meaningful consultation” with the Chairman, who in turn has first to consult with the other members of the Commission.
Controlling the Police Force is something both main parties have expended efforts on when in office, so the Chair of this Commission is a critical appointee. There is already dissension in relation to promotions in the senior hierarchy of the Police Force, and especially to the appointment of the current acting Commissioner.
The opposition have already indicated they might resort to the courts in this matter and an intervention from the Police Association which said among other things that “meaningful consultation” had taken place during the first meeting between President Ali and Mr Norton, was both unnecessary and unhelpful in the current situation. If the opposition does take the legal route, then how “meaningful consultation” is to be interpreted will no doubt be central to their application.
As if all of this were not enough to confuse the public mind, Mr Norton had at an earlier stage signalled his no-objection to the appointment of Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards as Chancellor and Justice Roxane George as Chief Justice. In a letter to Ms Teixeira dated the day before he met the President on the matter of commission appointments, he wrote: “…it is disappointing that your [Ms Teixeira’s] letter of the 11th day of May 2022, does not inform of the President’s intention to engage in the consultations required by the constitution in respect of the offices of the Chancellor and Chief Justice of Guyana. The Caribbean Court of Justice, through the Presidents of that Court, has repeatedly called for permanent appointments to be made to the Offices of Chancellor and Chief Justice of Guyana.”
The problem is that for the President to appoint two justices to these posts he is required to first secure the “agreement” of the Leader of the Opposition to the candidates. It should be noted that the Chancellor chairs the Judicial Service Commission on which the Chief Justice also sits. Additionally the complement includes the Chairman of the Public Service Commission as well as one and not more than two other members, one of whom is chosen after “meaningful consultation” with the Opposition Leader. “Agreement” has not been forthcoming between government and opposition for many years – seventeen in the case of the Chancellor.
Since both sides of our seemingly unbridgeable divide favour justices whom they perceive rightly or wrongly as being potentially sympathetic to them, these appointments, and by extension the Judicial Service Commission which chooses judges, are critical.
Ms Teixeira was anything but accommodating in her response to Mr Norton on the subject of these particular appointments: “I have already made it abundantly clear in previous correspondences,” she wrote, “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 … In this regard, you have hopelessly misconstrued your role in relation to appointments to these important constitutional offices.”
The government cannot avoid postponing these two particular appointments for ever, and will either have to accede to Mr Norton’s position, or else initiate dialogue on the matter no matter how antagonistic the atmosphere. They are under pressure from all sides on this issue, including from two justices of the CCJ, as Mr Norton pointed out.
One could only wish that the government would grow out of its habit of trying to control everything, and that Mr Norton would grow into his role so he spoke less and reflected on issues and tactics more. Citizens want some resolution to the current impasse so our institutions start to function again and are really tired of what comes close to slanging matches.
