President must address 2nd requirement in Article 161(2)

Dear Editor,
Article 161(2) of the Constitution sets out the requirements for the person who is to be the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). By now, we know what those two requirements are, and I reiterate albeit, concisely: a Judge or any other fit and proper person.
The President and Attorney General have expounded much about the six candidates on the People’s Progressive Party’s list not being Judges. Fair enough. But then, the President and Attorney General are very silent on the “fit and proper person” provision. This is where one has to be suspicious and question why this disregard for the second provision. Whenever a person is considered for any job anywhere, there are identifiable, measurable criteria that are used to assess the candidates’ suitability for the post. What is a criterion? Simply put, a criterion is a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided. Therefore, when candidates are unsuccessful or rejected for the post, then we know that they did not meet the identified criteria.
Further, these identifiable criteria allows for an objective and transparent assessment that can be scrutinised and examined if a challenge is mounted. And clearly, for such a critical and sensitive position as the GECOM Chairman, one expects that any Head of State would want to ensure that the process is free from personal preferences, political interference and bias, and thus a list of criteria is jointly determined by both parties and used to assess the eligibility (or ineligibility) of the candidates. And if the first six names were proven ineligible against the identifiable criteria (both parties agreed upon), then the process moves on and a second list may be compiled.
So let us for argument sake say that the six candidates are disqualified on the grounds of criteria one; that is, they are not Judges, then we need to know what identifiable, measurable criteria disqualified them from being “fit and proper” as well. After all, the Constitution does identify that the satisfaction of “fit and proper” is grounds for appointment of the Chairman.
If the President has rejected the list then he must address the second requirement of the Article and say on what grounds the candidates were not “fit and proper.” To do this, we the people need to know:
• What constitutes “fit and proper”;
• What measures/criteria he and his colleagues used to grade and determine the level of eligibility or ineligibility of each of these candidates. (And he must have some criteria in mind because he has rejected them. Then tell us what those criteria are that rendered them unsuitable. Wouldn’t that be helpful in selecting new candidates if the case warrants it?)
• There must be a grading system based on a set of criteria in order to choose the best candidate.
The President must be reminded that Guyana is not managed like his personal home, where decisions made in that circle is immaterial to the nation. He is accountable to the nation and that requires an explanation on why he would choose to do or not something especially when it is a deviation from law and what is traditionally accepted and practiced when they were in Opposition. This is not an unreasonable requirement but one that has its genesis in law.
And while he is at it, the President must also explain the following:
• His own nomination for the post of GECOM Chairman when he knew back then that he did not satisfy the very requirement he now holds on to;
• Why the People’s National Congress (PNC), when it was in Opposition, supplied a list to the then PPP Government that did not comprise judges. Both the President and Basil Williams are holding on staunchly to the need for the candidate to be a Judge. Then they need to tell us why in the past, they never supplied the names of Judges on their list.
• What deemed past GECOM Chairmen “fit and proper” in order to be on the list which they previously submitted to the PPP. Might I remind the President and Attorney General that Dr Surujbally came from a list provided by the PNC. He is not a Judge and does not possess an ounce of legal training. He’s a veterinarian. The PNC knew he was not a Judge but yet they listed him and he was selected for the position.
The PNC is deviating from its own practices and interpretation of the Constitution and a very clear hypocrisy and double-standard is seen. This needs urgent clarity.
Every member of society, every group and every person need to demand answers from the President. He is answerable to us the voters. He must address Article 161 (2) in its entirety and tell the nation why the six persons on the list did not satisfy “fit and proper”. Guyana is a democracy and this is how democracy works. If the President doesn’t feel he owes the nation any explanation, then he needs to tell us whether he sees Guyana as a democracy which warrants accountability and transparency, not just in financial matters but in every area of governance, or whether he has imposed dictatorship governance on this nation and so does not owe the nation any explanation. We need answers.

Yours faithfully,
Daren Jaipaul