Dear Editor,
Let me begin by saying that I totally disagree with the position taken by Mr. Kamal Ramkarran in his letter to the Editor of Kiskadee Watch dated Sunday, August 16th, 2026.
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND OVERREACH
In this letter, the writer seeks to impose limitations on the Leader of the Opposition’s power to withhold agreement to proposed appointments to the positions of Chancellor and Chief Justice. It is the first time that I am hearing such an interpretation. Article 127 (1) of the Guyana Constitution is clear on the need for the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition and it sets no conditions on that agreement. This language was deliberately chosen to separate this clause from others which call for “consultation” or “meaningful consultation”. As noble as it sounds, any imputation of objectivity into the clause would amount to overreach and place authority into the hands of judges where the Framers had no intention of doing so.
I am left to surmise that Mr. Ramkarran’s letter is public encouragement to the President of Guyana to attempt an unconstitutional unilateral appointment of the current acting Chancellor and acting Chief Justice. If that is indeed Mr. Ramkarran’s intention, I can only describe his letter as reckless.
What Mr. Ramkarran plus former Presidents of Guyana, and the current incumbent, perhaps forget is that they are not constrained from offering alternatives to the rejected candidates in order to make substantive appointments.
OVERREACH IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
On this blessed Sunday, I find myself a little troubled about my previous call for the resignation of Justice Winston Anderson, the current President of the CCJ. In the last twenty four hours, I was provided with information which suggests that this was not the first time that a sitting President of the CCJ had approached the President of Guyana and the Leader of the Opposition regarding substantive appointments to the positions of Chancellor and Chief Justice. I was advised that former President of the CCJ, Sir Dennis Byron, had previously approached President Granger and Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo to advance the appointments of specific candidates.
I have every reason to believe my source and this has evoked a little sympathy for Justice Anderson. First, I now believe that he was aware of the actions attributed to Sir Dennis and decided to “take one for the team” by not using it in his defense.
In my professional life, I have been amazed that highly regarded attorneys and jurists tend to blunder terribly in their administrative actions while simultaneously writing with exactitude in their scholarly output.
The suggestion that Sir Dennis may have acted in a similar fashion to Justice Anderson does not remove, or mitigate, the error in the actions of Justice Anderson. I respect him for apparently taking one for the team. However, Peter may end up paying for Paul.
Yours truly,
Terrence Campbell, M.P.
