Dear Editor,
Regarding Christopher Ram’s Business and Economic commentary, titled, “Calls for confirmation ignore judiciary’s fundamental problems,” (KWatch, October 14), he was spot-on as usual. I want to comment on his third paragraph from the bottom:
“The claims of other qualified candidates deserve consideration. Justice Deo Rishi Persaud was appointed to the High Court in 2004 and to the Court of Appeal in 2017, whereas the present acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh, was appointed to the High Court in 2012 and to the Court of Appeal in 2025. These differences do not automatically determine who should be appointed, but they demonstrate why confirmation should not be treated as a foregone conclusion. Neither seniority nor incumbency should replace a proper assessment of merit.”
That’s a very sensitive point given the appearance of undue interference and or influence by the executive branch over the judicial branch. Although the PPP inherited this interference/influence mess since 1992, it has chosen to further its existence rather than fix the mess, even though it knows the judicial branch is one of the three branches of government that serve as independent counterbalances in a democratic government system.
When it comes to the government system of employment, however, the opportunity for advancement up the ladder needs to be fully and frontally addressed to denude the system of political interference or influence. For historic perspective, under the British Constitution that predated what now passes for the Guyana Constitution, the three Service Commissions (Public Service, Police Service and Judicial Service) fell under the Governor General.
The composition and execution of duties by the commissions were designed in such a way to insulate state functions from political interference or influence. They made recommendations to the Governor-General, under whose authority official appointments under the commissions were formalized. The GG actually reported to the Queen. That arrangement changed when the Governor General’s responsibilities for the three commissions became incorporated into that of the Executive President, as per the 1980 Constitution.
With Forbes Burnham announcing at the 1974 Declaration at Sophia that the PNC was paramount over the State, the three Service Commissions became politicized. Ditto for the Teaching Service Commission, which was later launched under the Teaching Service Commission Act of 1975 (dated February 7, 1975), and officially came into operation on April 10, 1978.
When we fast forward to what is playing out today in the Judiciary, therefore, we have a politically bedeviled system when it comes to upward mobility for judicial officers. Although date-of-hire should be the starting point for promotion up the seniority ladder, a merit-based system that assesses one’s performance and potential for promotion can help weed out those who may ‘have the time’ that qualifies them for promotion, but not the ‘performance-based qualifications/qualities’. Ergo, the Judicial Service Commission, on recommendation for the Judiciary, should twin date-of-hire with merit-based performance for promotions and block out politically influenced selective promotions.
Take, for example, Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s repeated criticisms of judges who have been tardy in delivering written decisions they made a long time ago in civil court cases. He cited the ‘Time Limit on Judicial Decisions Act 2009’, which sets a statutory time frame for judges to deliver written or oral decisions (with reasons) within 120 days (4 months) after the conclusion of hearings.
After maintaining that the judiciary is not immune to public scrutiny, and describing the practice of tardiness as illegal or a sign of negligence, he then cited Article 197 (3) of the Constitution of Guyana as permitting the removal of a judge from office for persistently failing to write decisions or continuously failing to give decisions and state reasons within the time specified by Parliament.
That veiled threat was then tested in a court case featuring the late Ramon Gaskin versus Attorney General Nandlall in 2024, when the CCJ ruled that the 120-day statutory time limit was directory rather than mandatory, and that delays should be evaluated against objective constraints. Not surprisingly, the ‘constraints’ point was exactly what then acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire repeatedly butted heads with Nandlall over in defense of judges, forcing the government to belatedly, perhaps even grudgingly, hire more judicial officers.
The foregoing was cited as just one example in which government can cherry pick what performance (or even political) factors it wants to use in determining who gets promoted or even fired, even if the performance metrics used are skewered.
But it is also worth noting that the same Attorney General, who is considered the government’s top law enforcement officer and works in conjunction with the Director of Public Prosecutions and Guyana Police Force, has long appeared to have done little or nothing in several legal cases that made the news with no legal action taken.
Take the 2022 Vice Media revelations, for example. The recordings, still available on YouTube, feature Bharrat Jagdeo talking about his role and that of his former friend/tenant, Su, in negotiating government contracts for Chinese companies, while Su was caught talking about splitting fees with Jagdeo, that type of contract awarding really belongs to the public procurement system. But rather than the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Guyana Police Force taking the initiative to launch independent investigations, it was President Irfaan Ali who promised to investigate and did absolutely nothing.
The selective lack of action seems to fit neatly into a pattern of legally authorized actors waiting for a ‘greenlight’ from ‘upstairs’. Even the NPTAB, which awards government contracts to persons or companies, has made the news repeatedly for awarding contracts to persons and or companies that failed to meet the procurement rules and regulations required for receiving contracts. The Tepui pump station contract was so blatant that it shocked the nation when one of the company’s principals showed up at Jagdeo’s press conferences. It was as if the government didn’t care care who found out, yet the AG, DPP and GPF did nothing.
On September 7, 2025, President Ali promised to set up an Anti-Corruption Unit, which was clearly an admission he knew and knows corruption is a problem, yet 13 months later, nothing. Two days ago, the Attorney General reportedly urged the nation’s parliamentary opposition to be more involved in seeking solutions to major issues that are affecting the nation beyond highlighting allegations of corruption. Clearly, he, too, gets it that corruption is a problem that both the Opposition and public are talking about.
I close by 1) reiterating my support for the twinning of seniority and performance-based meritocracy when promoting judicial officers, and not merely using court rulings that favor the government, 2) ending the executive branch running interference in the judicial branch, with no substantive Chancellor and Chief Justice since 2005, and 3) urging the AG, DPP and GPF to do their jobs by initiating investigations into government corruption rather wait for ‘greenlights’. The executive branch has no right lecturing the judicial branch or allowing outsiders to run interference in the judicial branch. The two are separate branches of government.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
Discussion