Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter from Mr. Kamal Ramkarran, which clearly appears to be designed to drown us all in a sea of foreign case law and wishful thinking which appears to conveniently ignore the spirit and intent of the Guyana Constitution. While Mr. Ramkarran has spent an entire letter arguing that the power of the Leader of the Opposition is “subject to limitations”, in this specific case, he respectfully conveniently ignored the one thing that matters: the clear and unambiguous text of the very Constitution that is the Supreme Law of Guyana.
Article 127(1) of the Constitution is unambiguous:
“The Chancellor and the Chief Justice shall each be appointed by the President, acting after obtaining the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition.”
The words are not complicated. The phrase “acting after obtaining the agreement” places a mandatory condition on the President before he can act. As a lawyer, Mr. Ramkarran should appreciate the need for checks and balances, unless he is part of a team with designs on an autocratic monarchy.
The disrespect shown for the Office of the Leader of the Opposition by the President, the PPP and now the Guyana Bar Association knows no end—an office once held by Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo. Has the President written to the current Leader of the Opposition seeking agreement on these appointments? The answer is a resounding NO. Mr. Aubrey Norton is NOT the Leader of the Opposition. So how is the President seeking to act when the “donkey cart he is planning to steer has no wheels”?
Article 161(2), which Mr. Ramkarran cites from Mustapha v Attorney General of Guyana, contains entirely different language—“a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition after meaningful consultation.” If the framers intended for the Leader of the Opposition’s agreement to be subject to judicial review on “objective justification,” they would have said so. The very fact that Article 127(1) requires “agreement,” while Article 127(2) requires only “meaningful consultation,” demonstrates these powers are deliberately distinct. Equating them is a fundamental error.
His reliance on Mustapha is a clever but untrustworthy attempt to shoehorn a principle from one provision into another. The CCJ’s ruling concerned the President’s power to reject nominees, not the Leader of the Opposition’s power to withhold agreement. The Court was reluctant to subject the consultative process to judicial scrutiny, noting it “does not readily lend itself to traditional notions of judicial review.” Weaponizing a case that rejects judicial overreach is intellectually indefensible.
Mr. Ramkarran’s further attempt to parade foreign authorities—Porter v Magill and R (Miller) v Prime Minister—is a waste of ink. These are UK cases on UK prerogative powers, not binding on Guyana’s courts. Chalk and cheese, Mr. Ramkarran, chalk and cheese.
The reality is Guyana has been without a substantive Chancellor for over two decades and a substantive Chief Justice for nearly as long. This is not a constitutional crisis—it is a political deadlock that must be solved politically. The Constitution created a mechanism requiring agreement. That agreement has not been forthcoming. It is the prerogative of Guyanese political leaders to sit down like adults and “agree.” Why did Ramotar and Granger not agree when Ramotar was President and why did Granger and Jagdeo not agree when Granger was President? So why blame Mr. Azruddin Mohamed for this royal mess?
Mr. Ramkarran says no court would hesitate to intervene over a twenty-five-year void. And yet, no court has. Because the courts understand their constitutional limits—they interpret the law; they do not make it. The power to appoint lies with the President and the Leader of the Opposition. It is the power of agreement in this specific case, and where there is no agreement, there is no appointment. That is the law, whether Mr. Ramkarran finds it “reasonable” or not.
It is time for the Guyana Bar Association to seek an audience with President Irfaan Ali and Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and do the mature and patriotic thing: help secure an “agreement.”
Yours faithfully,
Surujdai Juglall
Discussion