to the President, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition after
meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties
represented in the National Assembly:
Provided that if the Leader of the Opposition fails to submit a list as
provided for, the President shall appoint a person who holds or has 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 is qualified to be
appointed as any such judge.
[3]
Justice Patterson’s appointment followed a series of written exchanges between
the President and the Leader of the Opposition between November 2016 and
October 2017. At the outset, on 22 November 2016, the President invited the
Leader of the Opposition to submit a ‘list of six persons, not unacceptable to the
President’ from among whom the President would select the Chairman of
GECOM. The Leader of the Opposition submitted a list of six persons on 21
December 2016. On the following day, the President requested the curriculum
vitae (“CV”) of each person on the list. The CVs, which were requested so as to
‘guide’ the President ‘in making the selection’, were forwarded on 28 December
2016. A few days later, on 5 January 2017, the President advised the Opposition
Leader that the six nominees were ‘unacceptable’ within the meaning of the
Constitution. The nominees were found to be unacceptable, according to the
President, because their CVs did not ‘seem to conform to the requirements of…
Article 161(2).’ The Leader of the Opposition was then urged to submit a new
list of persons for the President’s further consideration.
[4]
The Opposition Leader sought from the President information on the kind of
candidate that might find favour with the President. On 14 March 2017, the
President accordingly provided a Statement of the ‘Qualities of the Chairman
of the Guyana Elections Commission’. According to the President’s Statement:
1.
The candidate should be a person who is qualified to be a Judge of
the High Court under Article 129 of the Constitution and under
section 5 of the High Court Act, Cap. 3:02.
2.
That person should have been an Attorney-at-Law for a minimum
of 7 years, according to section 5 of the High Court Act, Cap. 3:02.