By Mark DaCosta- In May 2024, a significant legal application was filed in the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana, challenging the presidential appointment of Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) General Secretary Aslim Iqubal Singh to the Constitution Reform Commission. The applicants, Julian Cambridge, in his capacity as the Second Vice President of the Guyana Teachers Union, and Kemton Alexander, as the General Secretary of the Guyana Public Service Union, have brought this case against the Attorney General Anil Nandlall. They are represented by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and Attorney Sasha King from the law firm Forde, Amsterdam & Lewis.
The core of the application is the claim that Singh’s appointment, made pursuant to Section 4 of the Constitution Reform Commission Act No. 16 of 2022, was done without the necessary and mandated consultations with the constituent labour unions. The applicants argue that this oversight makes the appointment procedurally irrational, null, and void, and without legal effect.
The Constitution Reform Commission Act No. 16 of 2022 outlines that the Commission must include a nominee representing the Labour Movement among its members. According to the Act, the Labour Movement in Guyana comprises several unions, including the Guyana Teachers Union, the Guyana Public Service Union, the Guyana Labour Union, the Guyana Trades Union Congress, and others. The Act stipulates that these unions should be consulted to select their representative. However, the applicants assert that no such consultation occurred prior to Singh’s appointment.
Detailed evidence provided by the applicants indicates that leaders from various unions, such as Lincoln Lewis, General Secretary of the Guyana Trades Union Congress, Sherwood Clarke, General Secretary of the Clerical & Commercial Workers’ Union, and Coretta McDonald, General Secretary of the Guyana Teachers Union, confirmed they were not consulted. The lack of engagement, they argue, violates both the Constitution Reform Commission Act and the broader constitutional principles outlined in the Preamble and Article 13 of the Constitution of Guyana, which emphasise inclusive governance and consultation with stakeholders.
The application seeks multiple declarations from the court:
- That the appointment of Aslim Iqubal Singh is null, void, and of no legal effect.
- That the appointment was procedurally irrational and failed to comply with the required consultation process.
- That the Constitution Reform Commission is not lawfully constituted due to this procedural lapse.
Additionally, the applicants request an order directing the Constitution Reform Commission to cease all functions until a nominee representing the Labour Movement is appointed following the proper consultative process. They also seek any further orders the court may deem just, as well as costs associated with the application.
The grounds for the application are rooted in the events of April 3, 2024, when members of the Constitution Reform Commission, including Singh, were sworn in. The applicants argue that this swearing-in was flawed due to the lack of consultation with the Labour Movement. They detail the statutory requirements of Section 4 of the Constitution Reform Commission Act, which outlines the composition of the Commission and the necessity for a representative of the Labour Movement.
The President’s unilateral appointment of Singh, without the mandated consultation, is viewed by the applicants as a failure to exercise his powers rationally and in accordance with constitutional requirements and the precedents set by the Caribbean Court of Justice on the matter of consultation.
The case has significant implications for the governance and constitutional processes in Guyana. It highlights the importance of procedural integrity and the role of inclusive consultation in appointments to bodies that hold substantial influence over the country’s constitutional framework.
The High Court has scheduled a hearing for a later date. The Attorney General Anil Nandlall is required to file an Affidavit in Defence and appear at the hearing. Should the Attorney General fail to do so, the court may proceed to make a ruling in their absence.
This legal challenge is a crucial test of our nation’s commitment to constitutional principles and the rule of law. It underscores the need for transparency and stakeholder engagement in governmental appointments and could potentially reshape the way such processes are handled in the future. The outcome of this case will be closely watched by the legal community, policymakers, and the public, as it could have profound effects on the integrity and functioning of the Constitution Reform Commission and the broader constitutional reform efforts in Guyana.
