THE TIMELINE WE FOUND READS LIKE THIS:
1)March 2nd 2017 While he awaits a report from a panel on candidates shortlisted to fill the positions of Chancellor and Chief Justice respectively, President David Granger yesterday appointed Justices Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Roxane George-Wiltshire SC to act in the respective positions in the interim
2)December 31st 2017 PRESIDENT (GRANGER) PROPOSES KENNETH BENJAMIN Chancellor of Judiciary while the ACTING CHANCELLOR, JUSTICE YONETTE CUMMINGS-EDWARDS is being considered for the substantive post of Chief Justice.
3)February 8th, 2018 Jagdeo says NO to nominees for Chancellor and CJ…being Justice Kenneth Benjamin as Chancellor of the Judiciary or Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards as Chief Justice.
With no information- that we can find – from the Government’ s news pipeline to explain March 2nd 2017 thru February 8th 2018, we’re assuming Granger initially proposed Justices Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Roxane George-Wiltshire to be Chancellor and Chief Justice respectively, per the chronological dates of the reporting, then Kenneth Benjamin as Chancellor after March 2nd , per the reporting of December 31st 2017 and before February 8th, 2018.
We underscore that we do not know, have no clarifying information from the Granger Government at this time but are following sequential date reporting to understand the succession of appointments and what triggered them.
What’s a frequent Jagdeo reference in all this is Article 127 (1) of the Constitution stipulates that “the Chancellor and the Chief Justice shall each be appointed by the President, acting after obtaining the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition.”
That he dismissed every candidate proposed by Granger, citing this over arching sentiment- ‘agreement’ – is a classic case of the letter of the law used against its spirit.
That is underscored by statement that the proposed appointees were timed to be approved by a “differently constituted Judicial Commission” which translates, not so subtly, as racial preference; since the panel would have been either man or woman and Guyanese.
The Courts are intended to benefit the population and is not the sole domain of any political entity in a practicing democracy – though the ruling arm of Government gets to make judicial appointees, as a benefit of its victory.
The Guyana BAR Association agreed that Granger’s appointments met the criteria of Article 127(1) and 127(2) which made them lawful.
If anything was done, legally and strategically to confirm the appointments of these qualified Justices prior to Granger demitting office in 2020, or by the Opposition after he did, it has escaped record.
Four years later, December 31st 2024, the focus shifts to the current President having no specific reason for not confirming the Justices Cummings-Edwards and George-Wiltshire during the Granger era.
The expectation of him offering an answer of substance, despite universal sentiment of him being a titular head of state who lacks the freedom to speak outside of scripted lines, reeks both of frivolity by those posing the question and an absence of strategy to approach a matter of national crisis…by the Opposition that remains in political sludge.
That Jagdeo was able to control the selection of those vital personnel when there was a Coalition President speaks loudly to the Coalition’s failure to strategize, as the ruling arm, to get its agenda through.
His, Jagdeo’s, was an audacious use of the legal guidelines to deny then President Granger his right to lead in the selection of these Justices for the nation’s Highest Court and its legal mechanism.
But, the story here is that he succeeded and the feared judicial interpretations that seem to benefit one group, as it condemns another, is now more a peril than not.
Decisions, both legal and administrative, seem directed to maintaining a thoroughgoing ethnocracy with a ruling and superior race at the nation’s helm… is the palpable sentiment of the victim class.
And the question of how/why the appointment of these qualified Justices was allowed to be relegated to this indefinite period, then languish as unsubstantive for some seven years, is a rightful one.
It’s not an abnormal rupture in partisan preference. It’s that right to accountability that is part of the political DNA of democracies.
And that only matters when it is not framed as blame for one entity’s deviousness without blaming the other’s ineptitude- because they are codependent.
Shamefully, pointing out the travesty of these qualified justices not being affirmed in their appointments has fallen to a rag tag of political groupings with the ill-defined role of blaming the current government.
And this is a result of the multiple voices holding political court, offering solutions to satisfy specific views that are not always consistent with nation building.
Political parties are, typically, created to lead by establishing a mission and policies, say, that line up with the country’s constitution which generally says the country is for the people and is to be run to ensure that it benefits their existence.
Fundamentals of Public protests are sustained vigor and readable signage which knowledgeable organizers ensure.
The pop up appearance of protesters drawing attention to the failure of substantive confirmations of the aforementioned Justices is the devaluation of a noble cause because it lacks anatomy. The absence of political acumen in this vital form of public engagement is embarrassing, for an opposing stance.
Taking political pleasures sadly is a defeating oxymoron.
Look.
The careers and legacies of these Justices should be more than how they were denied promotions for which they are qualified because political lethargy prevailed over political anarchy.
It requires more than a smattering of protesters assembled in the name of query because that suggests low expectations and a submission to the theory that deceit deceives.
Those methods succeeded before compulsory education…and now social media.
What the denial of these Justices ascending to their promoted place demands is an organized force, unleashing a strategic protest with input from the country’s legal and civil societies.
Anything else looks as bad as it currently does and solidifies a victory in what the public holds to be self-evident truths ….that the Coalition Opposition is no match for the ruling Party.