Since the retirement of Chancellor (ag) Carl Singh and Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang, the issue of their replacement has been at the forefront of discourse, at least privately, in legal circles, but occasionally in the media. I myself have written about the issue once when I called on President Granger to appoint persons to fill the posts which had become vacant and had remained so for several months. I was quite pleased when the President made acting appointments of Chief Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards as Chancellor (ag) and of Justice George-Wiltshire S.C. as Chief Justice (ag). Justice George-Wiltshire S.C. who was also subsequently appointed as an Appeal Court Judge.
These two acting appointments, which only required consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, were enormously popular in the legal profession. After some months as acting appointees, I can say with certainty that the anticipated performances of the Chancellor (ag) and Chief Justice (ag) have exceeded expectations amidst enormous challenges, which had commenced under the chancellorship of Carl Singh, not least among which are the implementation of the new Civil Procedure Rules, the establishment of courts with new jurisdictions for family and sexual offences, the appointment of additional judges and a building programme to house courts, magistrates and judges. I believe that this opinion is shared by the legal profession.
For more than twenty years the task of choosing a chairperson of the Elections Commission (GECOM) was without controversy. With the resignation of Dr. Steve Surujballi the President invited the Leader of the Opposition to submit a list of six, not unacceptable, names under article 161 of the constitution, which was done in December, 2016. The article requires the chair to be a judge, a former judge or a person qualified to be a judge (the “judge category”) or a fit and proper person. The President rejected the list in its entirety. He first suggested that only a person in the ‘judge category’ could be appointed but later amended that to indicate that preference must be given to the ‘judge’ category. The President also stated that all the names on the list must be acceptable and if one is not, he is entitled to reject the entire list.
At the invitation of the President, the Leader of the Opposition submitted a second list. This was also rejected by the President. The Leader of the Opposition continued the policy of engagement and indicated that he will submit a third list. However, by that time, Mr. Marcel Gaskin, of a new organization called RISE, formed to promote constitutional reform, brought legal-constitutional proceedings seeking answers to four questions. These were: whether the list must include a judge, former judge or person qualified to be a judge; whether the President must state reasons for deeming each of the six names unacceptable; whether the President is obliged to select a person unless he has decided that the persons are unacceptable; whether one person being unacceptable renders the whole list unacceptable. The Guyana Bar Association, entered a case as amicus curiae (a friend of the court) and made submissions. The case was heard before Chief Justice (ag) George-Wiltshire, who announced an oral decision on July 17. The 33-page written decision became available last week.
The stunning news, unprecedented in Africa’s history, broke on Friday morning that the Kenyan Supreme Court had overturned the results of the August 8 elections which the incumbent president, Uhuru Kenyatta, 55, had won with 54 percent of the vote. The six-bench Supreme Court ruled four to two in favour of a petition by Raila Odinga, 72, running and losing for the fourth time, with 44 percent of the vote, who claimed that electronic voting results were hacked in favour of Kenyatta. New elections were ordered in 60 days.
Chief Justice David Maraga, in delivering the ruling said: “After considering the evidence, we are satisfied that the elections were not conducted in accordance with the dictates of the Constitution.” The court said that the elections commission committed “illegalities and irregularities…in the transmission of the results,” the details of which will be set out in the written judgment to be delivered in 21 days.
There are approximately 2,000 prisoners in the five facilities in Georgetown, New Amsterdam, Mazaruni, Lusignan and Timehri. Of these 35 percent is on remand awaiting trial. The Georgetown Prison at Camp Street was designed to accommodate 600 prisoners but held in the vicinity 1,000. Violent incidents or escapes have occurred in Georgetown, New Amsterdam and Mazaruni in the past. There was always a great fear among those responsible for security that Camp Street could explode at any time. The problem of overcrowding was well known.
The recent studies and reports are as follows: Read more
‘Inappropriate recusals are potentially very damaging.’ This statement begins the concluding portion of an article by Professor Abimbola Olowofoyeku, Professor of Law, Brunel University, London, UK, entitled ‘Inappropriate Recusals’ in The Law Quarterly Review, April 2016.
The main basis for recusals by judges (or other adjudicators, including magistrates) is actual or potential bias or the appearance thereof. It is in the Judge’s discretion to do so. As far back as 1972 in the libel appeal of Jagan v Burnham in Guyana’s Court of Appeal, the then Chancellor of the Judiciary, E.V Luckhoo, rejected an application by Dr. Fenton Ramsahoye, appearing for Janet Jagan, to recuse himself on the ground that his brother, Lionel Luckhoo, was appearing for Burnham.