President Irfaan Ali is not particularly committed to appointing a substantive Chancellor of the Judiciary and a Chief Justice. This is a great disservice to our nation.
At his press conference, last week, the President was asked about the appointments- Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice. He did not answer the question. Why nearing two decades of Guyana without a substantive Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice, the President is flagrantly neglecting this constitutional responsibility? His behaviour does not diverge fundamentally from that of former President Bharrat Jagdeo on this very issue.
Upon the retirement of Cecil Kennard and his replacement by Justice Desiree Bernard as Chancellor of the Judiciary, the next judge in place to the position of Chief Justice was Justice Claudette Singh. One would have thought that the process of promotions in this branch of government would allow for the selection of only the best, from the list of available candidates to fill those important positions. Not so. Justice Claudette Singh was overlooked in favour of Justice Carl Singh.
At that time Justice Claudette Singh had 14 years’ experience while Justice Carl Singh had only 6 years of experience in the judiciary. Why? A possible answer could lie in the fact that prior to that vacancy Justice Singh had ruled against the PPP/C government in an election petition that challenged the 1997 elections. In her ruling Justice Singh invalidated the electoral results on questions of procedural grounds. She applied the doctrine of necessity to validate all official acts in the interregnum period.
The PPP/C was humiliated. Apparently, that and the fact that Justice Carl Singh was connected to a very important and sensitive case [Chue v AG 27 Jan 2000, No 66-M/1998 HC Guy] during that time, influenced the government’s decision to appoint Justice Carl Singh as Chief Justice.
Then when a vacancy appeared in the office of Chancellor of the Judiciary, when Chancellor Desiree Bernard resigned in March 2005 to work with the Caribbean Court of Justice, (CCJ) in the face of protestations by the Leader of the Opposition, Justice Singh was again treated unfairly, and Justice Carl Singh was placed in that position.
Using his powers in article 127 (2) the president appointed Justice Carl Singh to act as Chancellor of the Judiciary. Subsequently, the President announced that he had appointed a committee to identify a suitable candidate to fill the position of Chancellor of the Judiciary. The President bluntly refused to not only share names for the post but also did not care to, and did not share, the names of the members of his committee set up to find a suitable individual to be Chief Justice. The action by the president was an absolute disregard of the provisions and procedures of the constitution to treat with this matter. Thus, Justice Carl Singh occupied both positions -Chief justice and Chancellor of the Judiciary while Justice Claudette Singh on the sideline of both posts. The matter was taken to the High Court. One year later, Justice Ramlal ruled that the constitution did not allow one individual to hold both offices at the same time, and that the ‘spirit’ of the Constitution did not envisage such long delays in filling these offices. The Justice held that the failure to appoint a substantive Chancellor for such a prolonged period constituted a violation of article 122A (1) of the Constitution by the President and the Leader of the Opposition. The rest is history.
Undoubtedly, the appointment of a substantive Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice holds immense significance in ensuring the efficient functioning and independence of the judiciary. When an acting Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice remain in office for an extended period without being appointed substantively it can have serious consequences.
One such consequence is that it puts at risk judicial independence. A substantive chancellor and chief justice ensure the separation of powers and guard against undue influence from other branches of government. When an acting chancellor and/or chief justice fills those posts for an extended period it creates an impression that the judiciary is susceptible to external pressures. This perception could negatively affect public trust in the judiciary, affect the integrity of fair administration of justice and even undermine the credibility of decisions of the Court.
