provided. Mr Gaskin had sought from the Court an interpretation of Article 161(2) of the Constitution of Guyana. [10] Four discrete issues were addressed by the court in Gaskin. The court determined that:4 a. b. c. d. [11] it was not the case that the list of persons for appointment as Chairman must include a judge, a former judge or a person qualified to be a judge. The various eligibility criteria stated in the Constitution carry equal weight; the President is required under the Constitution to state reasons for deeming as unacceptable any of the six names on the list submitted by the Leader of the Opposition; the President is obliged to select a person from the six names on the list unless he has positively determined that any or all of the persons on the list is/are unacceptable as not being fit and proper for appointment; and in the event the President considers that the list contains one or more ‘unacceptable’ persons, it lies within the discretion of the President either to select an acceptable person or to reject the entire list. The problem with the Gaskin decision is that it proceeded on a premise, surrounding the submission of the list by the Leader of the Opposition, that renders the Constitution unworkable in practice. The court did not work into the process any opportunity for the President to be able to signal, before the formal presentation of the list, that a particular listed nominee was, for good reason, not acceptable to the President. As will be made clearer in this judgment, we consider it necessary to close this gap. Issues for Determination [12] The dispute in this case requires the Court to interrogate Article 161(2). What does Article 161(2) mean? What steps should be followed for it reasonably to be operationalised? What are the respective obligations of the constitutional actors referenced in the Article? How do they discharge those obligations? Is the discharge of those obligations reviewable? 4 Ibid at 21 and 32.