political parties that may be represented in the National Assembly. Article 232 of the Constitution indicates that ‘consultation’ or ‘meaningful consultation’ requires the person seeking the consultation to: (i) (ii) (iii) [26] identify the persons or entities to be consulted and specify to them in writing the subject of the consultation and an intended date for the decision on the subject of the consultation; ensure that each person or entity to be consulted is afforded a reasonable opportunity to express a considered opinion on the subject of the consultation; and; cause to be prepared and archived a written record of the consultation and circulate the decision to each of the persons or entities consulted; The requirement for ‘meaningful consultation’ between the Leader of the Opposition and the non-governmental political parties that may be represented in the National Assembly is clear and needs little elaboration. What is not so clear is the process that should be followed to accommodate the spirit of consensus that must prevail between the President and the Leader of the Opposition. The Constitution envisages that this process will culminate in a list of six names being presented to the President, none of whom is unacceptable to the President. This ultimately gives the President the opportunity to select any one of those six persons as Chairman. The question is how do these two constitutional actors interact with each other so as to arrive at that culmination? We are of the view that the most sensible approach is that before a list is submitted, the Leader of the Opposition and the President must communicate with each other in good faith on, and perhaps even meet to discuss, eligible candidates for the position of Chairman. The aim of these discussions must be to agree the names of six persons who fit the stated eligibility requirements and who are not unacceptable to the President. In this regard, the Constitution anticipates that the Leader of the Opposition and the President will conduct themselves in a reasonable and responsible manner, eschew partisanship and seek the best interests of the Republic and the Guyanese people. [27] In our view, employment of the double negative, ‘not unacceptable’, signals that an onus is placed on the President not to find a nominee unacceptable merely because the nominee is not a choice the President would have himself made.