‘It is an unfair labour practice under ILO Convention to advise or coerce a worker to resign. No matter what the management think an employee should never be asked, advised or forced to resign.’ Clarke v. Keystone Bank Ltd. & Anor. [2015].
I was the Minister of Labour in the 1992 PPP government and secured the passing of the most consequential labour laws in Guyana’s post-independence history. But since the death of Cheddi Jagan, the progressive direction of labour relations has been abandoned and the regime has taken an increasingly autocratic road that was once again on display in its approach to the removal of the former Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag), Yonette Cummings-Edwards.
In my last article I concluded that if anything, success in removing the Chancellor enhanced the power of the ruling autocracy over the justice system and resultantly over the entire society. (‘Justice Anderson: a step too far,’ VV: 16/08/2026). More specifically, if the State can treat high-level employees so shabbily woe be upon the working class as other employers follow suit. We must, therefore, explore another dimension of this sordid saga to give workers some indication of their rights, particularly since claims of unfair labour practices can be very contentious.
The ILO Convention on Termination of Employment, 1982 (No. 158), does not explicitly address coercing a worker to resign but it emphasizes that employment should not be terminated unless there are valid reason connected with the worker’s capacity or conduct based on operational requirements. Note that it is usually immaterial that the employer finds itself in a difficult situation.
For example, in the Central Bank of Nigeria v. Aribo (2018), the employee did not voluntarily resign after the bank lost its licence and was fined for indulging in illegal foreign exchange transactions. She sued the bank for unfair labour practice on the ground that she was forced to resign. The court rejected the bank’s denial of duress and held that the employee was constructively dismissed.
In the final analysis, courts usually consider as valid evidence of coercion memos, emails, the wording of the resignation letter, inadequate notice period, preventing the employee from accessing the workplace or tools, having others coerce the employee, typing resignation submissions for a worker to sign, etc.
Some months ago, as required by the Constitution, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Aubrey Norton, agreed to the permanent appointments of the long acting Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice in their respective positions, The mere fact that after some two decades the PPP government had still not confirmed them is a clear indication that it was not satisfied with one or both of the incumbents. So, from what appear valid media accounts, let us assess how the regime chose to proceed.
In ‘Confusion in the Courts’ – Chief Justice shut out of chambers after Chancellor’s return (KN: 24/10/2025) the editor of the paper wrote, ‘The return of Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag), Yonette Cummings-Edwards from her annual leave has erupted some amount of confusion in the local judiciary, as Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire remains out of her office.’
Kaieteur News understood that Justice George, who had acted for the Chancellor, vacated her office when the acting Chancellor returned from leave but Justice Navindra Singh, who was acting for Chief Justice George, refused to vacate her office! The paper sought but could not get comments from the government or Justice Singh.
Assessing that apparent ‘confused’ situation, Dr. Terrence Campbell MP and parliamentary leader of the APNU, noted that the ‘crisis should have been swiftly ended with the revocation of Justice Singh’s appointment. Instead, the government applauded his apparent disrespect by forcing the Chancellor (ag) into premature retirement.’ He concluded that: ‘The forced departure of Ms. Yonette Cummings-Edwards … on early retirement, represents a grave threat to the independence of the judiciary in Guyana. It is incumbent on every Guyanese to condemn the actions of the PPP government in driving Ms. Cummings-Edwards from office’ (‘Independence of the Judiciary,’ KN: 26/10/2025).
Attorneys who represented Mr. Azruddin Mohamed and his father before the CCJ stated that APNU leader Aubrey Norton said that President of the CCJ Justice Winston Anderson personally telephoned him to broker an agreement on filling Guyana’s top judicial vacancies, claiming that he was a part of the negotiations surrounding Chancellor Edwards’ departure and is in collaboration with the President of Guyana.
‘Norton further stated that Justice Anderson pressed him to approve government-preferred candidates, allegedly pointing out that ‘Roxane George was an Afro Guyanese, so you got one’ and framing the move as an opportunity for Norton to ‘put his name in the history books’. As a result, the attorneys ‘called on the President of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Justice Winston Anderson, to recuse himself from all proceedings concerning their clients’ (KN: 2026/08/19).
The above suggests, that whether he knew it or not, Justice Anderson became involved in more than urging the Government and Opposition to fill the acting positions and was part of a comprehensive morally and legally reprehensible process to drive the Chancellor from office. There appear to have been more than one of the elements associated with constructive dismissal, but to which court could the former Chancellor have finally appealed?
Assuming the veracity of Mr. Norton’s claim that Justice Anderson resorted to a kind of ethnic political arithmetic – ‘Roxane George is an Afro-Guyanese so you get one’ – it would be helpful if he could convince the PPP to use a similar formula to walk away from autocracy and establish an inclusive, shared governance arrangement that is far more appropriate for an ethnically divided society such as Guyana, and more likely than not would have avoided the primary conformation dispute.
