poses such questions. Democracy and the rule of law are nourished by both the posing of such questions and the court’s answers to them. [15] The responsibility to appoint the Chairman of the Elections Commission is not a convention. It is a responsibility given to the President by the Constitution which prescribes the manner of its exercise. Mr Mustapha, as a citizen; a registered voter; and a member of the National Assembly representing a nongovernmental party, had the necessary interest to bring this application. We agree entirely with the decisions of the courts below that these preliminary objections have no merit. What does Article 161(2) mean? [16] In order to better understand the Article, it is helpful to look at its drafting history. Article 161 did not always exist in the form in which it does today. Prior to its current form, the Elections Commission Chairman was appointed by the President in his own deliberate judgment from among persons who fulfilled certain defined eligibility criteria. As originally enacted in the 1980 Constitution, Article 161(2) provided that: Subject to the provisions of the paragraph (6), the Chairman of the Elections Commission shall be appointed by the President from among persons who hold or have held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who are qualified to be appointed as any such judge [emphasis added]. Act 15 of 19956 (“the 1995 Act”) amended Article 161. It modified the President’s function in the appointment process and carved out a role for the Leader of the Opposition. The finality of the President’s discretion to choose the appointee was, however, preserved. [17] Mr Mustapha, in his written submissions before the High Court, noted that in 1990, the then President, Hugh Desmond Hoyte, invited the Council of Freely 6 Act No. 15 of 1995.