AFC calls for urgent appointment of substantive Chancellor, Chief Justice

The Alliance For Change (AFC), has called for the urgent appointment of a substantive Chancellor of the Judiciary and a Chief Justice. It also warned that the Attorney General’s frequent court actions against decisions made by the Parliament is placing undue burden on the already stretched judiciary.
In a statement on Monday, the party said Article 122 of the Constitution states: “All courts and all persons presiding over the courts shall exercise their functions independently of the control and direction of any person or authority; and shall be free and independent from political, executive and any other form of direction and control”.
“The frequency and vehemence with which the Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, acting in his capacity as the sole advisor to the executive, has initiated and prosecuted legal proceedings against the legislature in his quest to have the third arm of the state – the judiciary, determine matters which are within the jurisdiction of the legislature, have placed a significant burden on the judiciary.”
According to the AFC, since the commencement of the 10th Parliament, it was apparent that the executive would not only be unhappy with its lack of control of this arm of the state, but its preferred method of engagement with the legislature was open hostility and to have matters determined in the arena of the state’s only remaining arm, the judiciary.
“Whenever the executive elects to go to war with the legislature, the remaining arm of the state should at least be strong, independent and confirmed in their positions as arbiters, lest at some stage, during or after the battle, the umpires themselves become part or the source of a new contretemps,” the AFC posited.
Quoting Article 127 (1) of the Constitution, the AFC said: “The Chancellor and the Chief Justice shall each be appointed by the President, acting after obtaining the agreement of the leader of the opposition. And in the event of the inability to secure the agreement of the leader of the opposition, Article 127 (2) of the Constitution provides, “If the office of Chancellor is vacant … then until a person has been appointed to and has assumed the functions of such office…  the 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.”

Consequences

The AFC said there was considerable distance between “obtaining agreement” and “meaningful consultation”. “The Office of Chancellor of the Judiciary became vacant upon the ascension of the Honourable Justice Bernard to the Caribbean Court of Justice in 2001. Thereafter successive Presidents and leaders of the opposition, have been unable to agree on the appointment of a Chancellor. The consequence of this for Guyana, is that we currently have an acting Chancellor and acting Chief Justice at a time when two arms of the state are about to engage in open hostilities before the third. To compound this already difficult situation, is the fact that the acting Chancellor has assigned to the acting Chief Justice, the hearing of all constitutional matters at first instance.
“So as the state goes to war with itself, we now face the prospect of the third arm of the state being exposed to the possible indignity of allegations of potential bias.”