By Roysdale Forde S.C- In the sovereign Republic of Guyana, the rule of law stands as the bedrock of our democratic edifice, enshrined in Article 144 of the Constitution, which guarantees the independence of the judiciary as indispensable to the administration of justice. Still, sadly, for nearly two decades, this foundational principle has been imperiled by the protracted failure of the Executive to substantively appoint a Chancellor of the Judiciary and a Chief Justice.
This constitutional lacuna not only contravenes the spirit of Articles 127 and 128, which mandate presidential appointments with the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition, but also undermines the separation of powers doctrine, a cornerstone of Montesquieuan political theory adapted to our Caribbean context. As a Senior Counsel and advocate for constitutional fidelity, I urge President Irfaan Ali to forthwith engage in meaningful consultations to rectify this egregious oversight, lest the judiciary’s efficacy and legitimacy be irreparably compromised.
The urgency of this matter has been unequivocally articulated by the highest echelons of regional jurisprudence. Most recently, on October 17, 2025, the President of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Justice Winston Anderson, renewed the call for substantive appointments during a visit to Guyana. In his remarks, Justice Anderson expressed optimism tempered with exigency: “I believe that the Government is working towards resolving the issue, I believe that with our meeting with the parties, the opposition in the parliament, that they are also aware of the difficulties, and that they are also working towards a resolution of the problem and therefore I hope that by the next time I am in Guyana, that that matter be resolved.”
That statement underscores the regional implications of Guyana’s judicial stasis, as the CCJ serves as our apex appellate tribunal under Article 123 of the Constitution. Justice Anderson’s predecessor, Justice Adrian Saunders, had similarly decried the situation in May 2025 as “most regrettable,” highlighting a persistent “blot” on our legal landscape that has only enlarged with time.
This vacuum in substantive leadership profoundly impairs the functionality of Guyana’s judiciary, on many levels, manifesting in multifaceted institutional dysfunctions. Foremost, the absence of confirmed officeholders exacerbates judicial backlogs, with thousands of cases languishing in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Statistics from the Judiciary’s annual reports reveal a mounting caseload exceeding 10,000 matters, with average disposition times ballooning to over two years for civil disputes and even longer for criminal proceedings.
This delay contravenes Article 144(1), which affirms the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, thereby eroding public confidence in the justice system. Citizens, particularly the indigent and marginalised, face protracted denials of justice, fostering perceptions of inefficiency and bias that could incite social unrest in our multi-ethnic polity.
Moreover, the reliance on acting appointments engenders precariousness in judicial administration, potentially compromising impartiality. Acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire have commendably stewarded the judiciary since 2017, introducing innovations such as electronic filings and virtual hearings. However, their interim status invites speculation of executive influence, as renewals hinge on presidential discretion.
This arrangement risks violating the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, an international benchmark endorsed by the United Nations, which emphasise security of tenure to insulate judges from external pressures. In Guyana’s polarised political milieu, where electoral disputes have repeatedly tested judicial mettle, as seen in the 2020 election petitions adjudicated by the CCJ, the specter of perceived politicisation looms large, deterring foreign investment and hampering economic jurisprudence in our burgeoning oil economy.
Internationally recognised jurists have long expounded on the dangers of such judicial vulnerabilities. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh aptly observed, “I believe that an independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic.” This sentiment resonates profoundly in Guyana, where judicial independence safeguards against executive overreach, ensuring equitable adjudication amid our resource-driven prosperity.
Similarly, former U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist emphasised the altruistic essence of this independence: “The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law…. Judges are expected to administer the law, not to make it, and they must be independent if they are to carry out that high duty honourably.” In our context, protracted acting tenures subvert this duty, exposing the judiciary to undue political vicissitudes and diminishing its role as a bulwark against arbitrary governance.
Complementing these judicial perspectives, legal scholar and U.S. jurist Joseph Story, in his seminal “Commentaries on the Constitution,” warned of the societal ramifications of an enfeebled judiciary: “And if these, or either of them, are regulated by no certain laws, and are subject to no certain principles, and are held by no certain tenure, and are redressed, when violated, by no certain remedies, society fails of all its value; and men may as well return to a state of savage and barbarous independence.” Story’s erudition, drawn from Enlightenment ideals, illuminates how Guyana’s current impasse regresses our legal order, potentially unraveling the social contract that binds our nascent democracy.
Politically, this dereliction reflects a lamentable impasse between the People’s Progressive Party/Civic administration and opposition forces, including the A Partnership for National Unity. While constitutional reform discussions, as mooted in the 2025 PPP/C manifesto, may address the appointment mechanism, such deliberations must not serve as a pretext for inertia. The Leader of the Opposition’s concurrence is constitutionally requisite, yet bipartisan dialogue – facilitated perhaps by the Judicial Service Commission once reconstituted – can surmount partisan divides. Failure to act perpetuates a cycle of interimism that contravenes the Inter-American Democratic Charter, to which Guyana accedes, mandating effective separation of powers.
All in all, the substantive appointment of a Chancellor and Chief Justice is not merely an administrative formality but a constitutional imperative vital to restoring judicial vitality. President Ali must prioritise this matter, convening expeditious consultations to affirm Justices Cummings-Edwards and George-Wiltshire. By doing so, we reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law, fortifying Guyana’s democracy against internal frailties and external scrutiny. Let us heed the CCJ’s admonitions and the wisdom of global jurists: a robust, independent judiciary is the sine qua non, of a just society. The time for action is now, before this gap metastasises into a chasm irreconcilable with our republican aspirations.
