Dear Editor,
I have noted GECOM’s response, to my missive. My missive addressed the Chair’s imposed state of comatose on GECOM, while at the same time it challenged the legitimacy of her actions.
There are but two observations that that response warrants. Firstly, if the Chair is relying on Article 161(3) (b) to justify that the Commission is not properly constituted, she should similarly apply Article 161(2) which states that the Chair is “appointed by the President from a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the leader of the Opposition after meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly”. Her appointment similar to that of the Opposition Appointed Commissioners has its origin with the Leader of the Opposition “after meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly”. Claudette Singh should therefore, based on her own interpretation of the Constitution, resign since the provision providing for the appointment of the commissioners is applicable mutatis mutandis to the appointment of the chair.
Secondly, the Chair, the first amongst equals (the commissioners) is the Chair/Head of the Commission of which the administration is but a part, its executing arm. Any meeting with her is ostensibly a meeting on behalf of the Commission, not the administration. Apart from the statutory functions attributed to the Chair, by law, the Chair acts on behalf of the Commission. Paradoxically, she has decommissioned the Commission, pending its re-constituting, and at the same time seeks to act on its behalf as if the Administration, of which the Chair is not a part, is GECOM.
GECOM is comatose and in crisis, largely due to the actions of the Chair. What misinforms and/or motivates her actions may well be the elephant in the room.
Yours sincerely,
Vincent Alexander
Discussion