the Opposition in the making of the appointment. How else could the Leader of the Opposition submit to the President, “a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President”? The President obviously retains the overriding power to make the determination as to who will be appointed because, assuming their eligibility, it is the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition to ensure that the six persons on the list submitted to the President meets with the President’s approval. The exercise must, of course, be conducted in good faith, supported by competent advice on both sides, and with the requisite level of commitment to the Republic inherent in the competence to make such an important national appointment. [33] Article 161(2), therefore, requires that the list of eligible nominees for the office of Chairman of the Elections Commission be finalized through a process of consultation, dialogue and compromise between the President and the Leader of the Opposition and that this process is to be completed before the list is formally submitted by the Leader of the Opposition to the President. I am reluctant to go beyond agreeing that this process is constitutionally required on a proper interpretation of the constitutional provision. Specifically, I am unwilling, certainly at this stage, to impute a requirement in Article 161(2) to give reasons, and of particularizing the timing, nature and scope of the reasons to be given, for decisions or positions taken pursuant to the required process of consultation. [34] Respectfully, the requirement to give reasons found in the courts below, appeared to have meandered to an inconclusive and indecipherable end. This could well have been so because the nature of the consultative exercise contemplated by Article 161(2) does not readily lend itself to traditional notions of judicial scrutiny and judicial review. Deciding on the probity of the reasons given by the President as to why a person on the submitted list does not qualify as being ‘not unacceptable’ to him or her is not a task that the courts ought unnecessarily to invite or to be eager to undertake. [35] The Constitution anticipated that the appointment of the Chairman of the Elections Commission would be a cooperative endeavour between the two most