Article 161(2) was plainly intended to throw up a candidate who enjoyed support across the political spectrum. It was further argued on behalf of the appellant that Article 161(2) did not envisage a situation where the President simply declared a list to be unacceptable, without more, and proceeded to apply the proviso and to appoint his preferred candidate, even though the persons on the list were eminently suitable.25 [49] It is recognized that there is no general duty for a public authority to give reasons, unless that duty is imposed by some procedure, rule or statutory provision. It is accepted however that whether such a duty exists depends on the circumstances of the case. In the case of Re Hanoman (Carl) 26 the then Chief Justice of Guyana, Justice Desiree Bernard, considered whether the Minister of Health was obliged to give reasons for rejecting two of the nominees of the Guyana Medical Association. Bernard CJ observed: In the absence of specific legislation obliging a public functionary to give reasons for a decision, many cases indicate that the modern trend is towards openness, fairness and transparency regardless of the right that is infringed: personal, vested, public or rights acquired under schemes or plans. The overall objective is fairness based on the long-established principles of natural justice.27 [50] Bernard CJ further noted: Public officials who are charged with the responsibility of making decisions particularly those which involve the exercise of a discretion whether by acting on advice or consulting must do so with fairness and give reasons for the exercise of the discretion in a particular way so that it can be ascertained whether the discretion was exercised reasonably and, according to Lord Greene MR in Wednesbury [1948] 1 KB 223, 'within the four corners of the principles' he enumerated. The exercise of a discretion is rooted and grounded in the need and duty to act fairly. This does not mean that the courts must decide whether the decision of the decision-maker is fair; this is solely the function of the person exercising the discretion. What the courts are concerned with is the decision-making process and the manner in which the discretion was exercised, and whether it was exercised fairly.28 Paragraph 60 of the appellant’s written submissions filed on 25 April 2019. (1999) 65 WIR 157 (retired JCCJ) citing R v Higher Education Funding Council, ex parte Institute of Dental Surgery [1994] 1 All ER 651 and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1993] 3 WLR 154 with approval. 27 Ibid, page 167. 28 Ibid, page 169. 25 26