In a sharply worded opinion piece published in his Eye on Guyana column, veteran trade-unionist Lincoln Lewis argues that the appointment process for Guyana’s judiciary has been compromised, with the executive manoeuvring to undermine the separation of powers and erode public confidence.
Lewis’s commentary takes aim at the arrangement surrounding the office-holders of the judiciary’s number-one and number-two posts. He writes:
“This action of musical chairs tarnishes the integrity of our judicial branch and the executive, leaving the ordinary man and woman with concerns regarding fair, transparent and independent adjudication in the courts of Guyana.”
The issue centres on the two acting incumbents—Yonette Cummings‑Edwards and Roxane George‑Wiltshire—respectively Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary and Acting Chief Justice. Cummings-Edwards was appointed Acting Chancellor in March 2017, and George-Wiltshire as Acting Chief Justice, following the retirement of a prior Acting Chancellor under the administration of David Granger.
Earlier this year, when Acting Chancellor Cummings-Edwards proceeded on leave, Acting Chief Justice George-Wiltshire was appointed Acting Chancellor, while Justice Navindra Singh was appointed Acting Chief Justice. Upon Cummings-Edwards’s return to work on October 22, George-Wiltshire sought to revert to her substantive acting position as Chief Justice. However, Singh reportedly refused to vacate the post, triggering the resignation of Cummings-Edwards from the Acting Chancellor role. Sources say she was effectively forced out by this impasse.
Lewis reports that Cummings-Edwards was quietly removed from her acting capacity as Chancellor, with George-Wiltshire remaining in that role and Singh continuing to function as Acting Chief Justice. According to Lewis:
“It was disappointing to learn … the surreptitious removal of Yonette Cummings-Edwards from her acting appointment as Chancellor. … This stems from the fact that he [Singh] is willing to bend to the will of the government. These two positions give the regime surety at the No. 1 and No. 2 levels.”
Constitutional concerns raised
The unfolding situation has drawn renewed attention to Article 127(2) of the Constitution of Guyana, which governs the appointment of the Chancellor and Chief Justice in cases of vacancy or temporary incapacity. The article provides that:
“If the office of Chancellor or Chief Justice is vacant or if the person holding the office of Chancellor is performing the functions of office of President or is for any other reason unable to perform the functions of his or her office, or if the person holding the office of Chief Justice is for any reason unable to perform the functions of his or her office, then, until a person has been appointed to and has assumed the functions of such office or until the person holding such office has resumed those functions, as the case may be, those functions shall be performed by such other of the Judges as shall be appointed by the President after meaningful consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.”
When Irfaan Ali wrote to Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton on July 10, 2025, this constitutional clause was explicitly referenced. The letter, sent via Minister Gail Teixeira, reaffirmed that any acting appointments to those top judicial offices must follow that process of consultation.
Based on the provisions of Article 127(2), it was expected that once Cummings-Edwards returned from leave, she would resume her duties as Acting Chancellor, George-Wiltshire would return to her position as Acting Chief Justice, and Justice Singh would revert to his substantive judicial post. The failure of this expected reversion, and the manner in which Cummings-Edwards was forced out, has therefore given rise to significant unease and speculation about the proper interpretation and application of the constitutional framework.
Lewis argues that the reshuffling and the stand-off appear to contradict both the letter and the spirit of the constitutional provision, which was designed to prevent executive overreach and to preserve judicial independence. He characterises the current situation as “musical chairs” that risks undermining the integrity of the courts and the public’s confidence in them.
“Appointment through injustice is corruption of the judiciary,” Lewis asserts. “How do the regime, the newly acting chancellor and chief justice expect the vulnerable and law-abiding in society to feel that someone who is appointed through injustice will willingly uphold justice?”
Impact and calls for redress
According to Lewis, the effect of these developments is a deepening of public scepticism toward the judicial branch and the wider system of governance. He laments that “the ordinary man and woman” is left with concerns that the courts may no longer offer impartial or transparent adjudication—particularly if the judiciary is viewed as being shaped to fit the government’s will.
He further states that Cummings-Edwards faced “public humiliation” and, after the interchange of offices and the standoff, opted for early retirement. Lewis argues that the government should back-date her appointment as Chancellor so she may be accorded the full title recognition and retirement benefits for the office she served “faithfully … over the years but was denied the opportunity to occupy with full title recognition.”
His appeal is two-fold: he calls on the President’s government to rectify the appointment process and on the Opposition to demand redress:
“The Irfaan Ali government is called on to back-date Cummings-Edwards’ appointment … The Opposition must also demand this.”
Significance in context
Lewis places this controversy at a time when the Guyanese judiciary is under pressure on issues of ethics, decency, and trust, writing:
“At the moment when judiciary is facing its most crucial test regarding ethics and decency … This simple action has eroded the confidence and hope that any person … can have faith in the judicial system.”
His warns that the situation in Guyana is “another sad day for the judicial system and Guyana.”
What it means
At its core, the dispute underscores a broader concern about judicial independence and constitutional governance in Guyana. If appointments and acting arrangements within the judiciary are perceived as politically influenced rather than transparent and merit-based, the credibility of the courts—and by extension, the rule of law—stands at risk.
Observers will now watch closely whether the government moves to regularise the appointments of Chancellor and Chief Justice in accordance with Article 127(2), and whether the Opposition presses for recognition of Cummings-Edwards’s claim, as argued by Lewis.
