Senior Counsel Timothy Jonas is warning that Guyana’s prolonged reliance on acting appointments to its two highest judicial offices risks weakening judicial independence, arguing that the Chancellor and Chief Justice must have secure tenure to make decisions without fear of political or career consequences.
Speaking to the Guyana Business Journal, Jonas said the word “acting” carries serious implications for judges occupying senior positions that remain subject to confirmation.
“The word acting means that they have not been confirmed and therefore under the law and under the system, they shall be replaced and another acting appointment put in, as was done very recently with acting Chancellor Cummings.”
Guyana has gone more than two decades without a substantively appointed Chancellor. Justice Désirée Bernard, who left the position in 2005, was the last substantive Chancellor. The country has similarly endured prolonged periods in which the Chief Justice has served in an acting capacity.
The latest chapter in the judicial leadership crisis unfolded around former Acting Chancellor Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards.
When Cummings-Edwards proceeded on leave, Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire was appointed to perform the functions of Chancellor, while Justice Navindra Singh was appointed to act as Chief Justice during George-Wiltshire’s temporary elevation.
The episode has become a stark illustration of the complications that can arise when the country’s two most senior judicial offices remain occupied through temporary arrangements rather than substantive appointments.
Following Cummings-Edwards’ departure, George-Wiltshire and Singh were appointed to perform the functions of Chancellor and Chief Justice respectively in August 2025. They remain in those acting positions.
What the Constitution says
The Constitution places responsibility for substantive appointments in the hands of the President, but requires opposition agreement.
Article 127(1) provides that the Chancellor and Chief Justice are appointed by the President “after obtaining the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition.” Where either office is vacant, Article 127(2) provides for acting appointments following meaningful consultation with the Opposition Leader.
The constitutional arrangement is therefore intended to prevent the executive from unilaterally determining who occupies the judiciary’s two highest offices.
President Irfaan Ali has maintained that his recommendations for substantive appointments remain unchanged, with Justice George-Wiltshire proposed as Chancellor and Justice Singh as Chief Justice.
The failure to reach agreement has prolonged an impasse that has attracted concern from senior Caribbean judicial figures, including former presidents of the Caribbean Court of Justice.
The fear of career consequences
Jonas acknowledged that successive acting officeholders have sought to perform their duties professionally, but argued that the system itself creates an unacceptable vulnerability.
“Fortunately for us, the people who sat in those chairs, and I include all of them up to now, have done their best to perform their jobs professionally and dispassionately without fear or favour.”
He nevertheless questioned whether a judge whose position is temporary can ever be completely insulated from concerns about tenure and career advancement.
“But let me ask you: if you depend on your job and you depend on being upwardly mobile, and you know that you can be fired if you give a decision that is not favourable, or you know that your options of promotion to the Court of Appeal or your options of promotion to the Caribbean Court of Justice might be less if you’re not perceived as playing along, and you’re only acting.”
Jonas said Guyanese should insist that the political leadership resolve the deadlock and make substantive appointments.
“It’s it in the interest of every Guyanese to say to the leaders: we want confirmed people in those positions.”
He said the appointment process could be subjected to greater public scrutiny, including hearings, but must ultimately produce secure judicial tenure.
“Do what you need to do, be intrusive, be invasive, have public hearings, but when you’re done, confirm them in their positions so that they can give a decision that is against the government, or they can give a decision that is against the opposition, or against the trade union, or against this important businessman, without fear, because they can’t be fired.”
For Jonas, the issue is fundamental to the rule of law: judges must be able to rule against whoever appears before them without worrying about whether their decisions could affect their positions or future advancement.
“Because that is the only way a justice can operate truly independent. They have got to be freed from that kind of fear.”
The continuing acting appointments therefore represent more than a procedural dispute between the executive and opposition. They raise a broader institutional question about whether Guyana can claim a fully independent judiciary while the holders of its two highest judicial offices remain without substantive confirmation.
