[51] In light of this modern trend towards openness, fairness and transparency, the historical background of electoral reform in Guyana and the amendments to Article 161(2) of the Constitution, it is therefore necessary to assess whether the President was under a duty to give reasons for rejecting the lists submitted to him by the Leader of the Opposition. This leads to the question: Can there be true consensualism and participation in the decision-making process as envisioned by the Constitution of Guyana without an obligation imposed on the President to give reasons for rejecting the list submitted by the Leader of the Opposition? In my view, Article 161(2) contemplates a consensual process whereby opposition political parties in Guyana will participate in a meaningful way in the selection of the Chairman of the Elections Commission. The duty on the President to give reasons for rejecting the list submitted by the Leader of the Opposition is therefore a critical aspect of this process. The giving of reasons by the President will ensure transparency and accountability to the people, avoid unilateralism and arbitrariness, and engender public trust and confidence in the Elections Commission. [52] Another important consideration in determining this crucial issue is that the giving of reasons by the President for the rejection of the list will lead to acceptance of his decision to reject the list and to resort to the proviso. In my judgment, without the duty imposed on the President to give reasons for rejecting the list, the objectives of Article 161(2) would not be realized. In the absence of the reasons of the President, the question why a list was rejected by the President would remain a mystery not only to the Leader of the Opposition who submitted the list, but generally to the people of Guyana. Without the duty to give reasons for rejecting the list submitted by the Leader of the Opposition, therefore, the President could arbitrarily disregard the list submitted to him and simply apply the proviso. [53] I am therefore in full agreement with the judgment of Saunders PCCJ that the process that was followed in the appointment of Justice Patterson as Chairman