Dear Editor,
On Friday, September 9, 2022, I read both the Kaieteur News and the Stabroek News and saw news pieces that caught my attention. It made mention of the fact that Mr. Carl Singh and Mr. Ian Chang (deceased), had not been appointed to the substantive position as Chief Justice by the President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, to which they acted with sterling efforts due to the behaviour of two persons holding the highest offices in the land. This historical fact has made a mockery of two Offices equally – the Office of the President and the Office of the Opposition when it comes to the job of the appointment of a Chief Justice.
I am left wondering why should we, the citizenry, allow history to repeat itself when we know better and have been so advised by the current President of the CCJ, to appoint a suitable person to be the Chief Justice?
When Guyana was a leader in advocating the need for a Regional Court, Guyana was taken to be very serious, so why now at a crucial time when all and sundry in the Caribbean await the impending appointment of Roxane George-Wiltshire as the substantive C.J. must everyone be held at ransom. Surely this state of affairs is completely ludicrous. Does this remind us, the lay people of Guyana, of something that was recent and that lasted 5 months!! Five long months and as Guyanese would say “Lang lang time!!”
Let us take some persuasion by how the leading politician in another jurisdiction has been handling such an issue, and be guided. Here in Canada, due to the great attention, the government pays to human rights and International Law, since 2016, an independent and non-partisan Advisory Board had been mandated to identify suitable candidates who are high-calibre jurists, speak both English and French, and represent the diversity of Canada.
This Independent Board for the Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments (Advisory Board), comes under the authority conferred by the Order in Council. The candidate usually has to submit five leading decisions. Usually, within three weeks to one month of a vetting process, a Chief Justice is appointed by the P.M.
The appointment day is just a formality, and the P.M. must make the time to see that the Oath is administered per law, even if it means he has to return from an Overseas Mission, which is protocol with the Privy Council Office’s way of conducting its business swiftly, particularly business emanating from certain types of Order in Council.
And further, Editor, if one doesn’t wish to argue the point with a legalese connotation, or by looking for our counterparts around the globe, one can look at universal convention and shall see that due to a custom seen the world over, persons should not have a well-intentioned visitor waiting at their doors for too long as it is offensive to do so, and quite unmannerly of a homeowner.
I end by strongly objecting to such action by any person involved in the impending appointment of Ms. George-Wiltshire as the Honourable C.J..
Why make her wait at our doorsteps? There is no issue at hand for the Opposition Leader not agreeing to her candidature, as he is constitutionally duty bound to grapple with the issue and has done so for, as I understand it, that politician has fully agreed to her appointment.
Surely, this is a grave injustice done to Madame Chief Justice (ag.) Roxane George-Wiltshire.
A wah me a hear a dis hour! Colossus yet lazy people a run abee country!
Yours faithfully,
M. Shabeer Zafar (barrister,
solicitor, notary retired)
New Brunswick, Canada
