Dear Editor,
I take issue with the recent missive of Dr. Terrence Campbell published in your newspapers on the 26th October, 2025 in which he proffered his considered opinion on matters pertaining to the independence of the Judiciary of Guyana in the course of which he vilified and berated Chief Justice Navindra Singh as being unfit to be appointed to that office.[1]
Dr. Campbell omitted any reference to the fact that President Granger refused to appoint Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards CCH, OR as the permanent Chancellor of the Judiciary of Guyana.
The then President Granger instead identified Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin of the Belize High Court to be appointed to the office of the Chancellor. However, because of his backlog of undelivered judgments, that effort did not come to fruition.
An indictment upon Chancellor Cummings.
The pontifications of Dr. Campbell on this issue directed at the incumbent Government seems rooted in a prejudice that may be influenced by personal perspectives and lacks historical accuracy whilst betraying a partisan agenda, disguised as a new found concern for judicial independence.
The last confirmed Chancellor of the Judiciary of Guyana was the distinguished jurist Justice Désirée Bernard. Subsequently, under the PPP Government Justice Ian Chang S.C. became the Chief Justice (ag) and Justice Carl Singh CCH, OR the Chancellor (ag).
The question must be asked, why didn’t the opposition—your party, which was once my party—not appoint these judges to permanent positions? This highlights issues of political prejudice, spite, and indifference for the independence of the judiciary.
To thine own self, be true.
Regarding Justice Navindra Singh, I defended the judge when Mr. Glenn Hanoman, Attorney-at-Law instituted private criminal charges against him without any evidence. Mr. Hanoman has had several prior interactions with the judge who did not tolerate rudeness or insults. The charges arose from one such encounter and were intended to embarrass him and yet you omitted to inform the public of the outcome of the case.
There was no evidence presented; the case was withdrawn, and that was the end of the matter.
To seek to weaponize such incidents is an affront to fairness and due process. It reeks of political vendetta not principle.
In relation to the incident referred to as involving the judge in which you intervened, you failed to provide the context and circumstances and appear intent on tarnishing him.
Justice Singh was an outstanding legal practitioner, both in Guyana and the United States of America. He never requested a job in Guyana; he was invited to apply, and he did apply, sacrificing his independence in the United States and returning to serve his country.
He is not a “timorous soul”, in court or out of court and has stood his ground, refusing to surrender his dignity or compromise his integrity.
His decision and Injunction Orders issued on the 5th May, 2020 in the Elections case, restraining a declaration of the Region 4 results by the Returning Officer, unless done in compliance with the Law as stipulated in Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act, halted the crude unlawful attempts to unlawfully install Mr. Brigadier David Granger for a second term of office, an Order and decision validated by the subsequent recount which appears to remain unforgivable to Dr. Terrence Campbell.
Dr. Terrence Campbell has referenced the no-confidence motion decision before the Chancellor Cummings as a source of disturbing discomfort with the Government, but remains silent firstly, as to the observations and comments of the judges of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and the decision of that Court.
Dr. Terrence Campbell remains conspicuously silent of and concerning the observations of the academics of the University of the West Indies on the questionable decisions emanating from the Court of Appeal, Guyana during this period but pontificates nonetheless at length on independence and impartiality.
An extract is attached below for ease of reference.
“Dr. Ronnie Yearwood, Lecturer in Law and Cynthia Barrow-Giles, Senior Lecturer in Political Science, were at the time delivering a lecture as part of the UWI Cave Hill Campus, Faculty of Law, Working Paper Series titled “The Judiciary and the 2020 Guyana Elections” on Thursday last.
Barrow-Giles was a member of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) High Level Team for the Recount of the Vote for the 2020 elections in Guyana in March 2020 and she served as Team Leader of the CARICOM Observer Mission for the recount of the March 2020 General and Regional Elections in May 2020.
During their presentation, with reference to the Appeal Court decisions, the academics also scrutinised whether there was a breach of the separation of powers.
“Some of the judgements that came out of the Court of Appel are highly questionable,” Barrow-Giles said, and, while making it clear that she is not trying to “impute” anyone, she suggested that the reasons for the decisions might be influenced by the process used to appointment officers of the court.” (Caribbeantrakker.com, October 23 2021)
Dr. Campbell’s criticism of Justice Singh’s sentencing practices as being reversed on appeal by the CCJ for being harsh and excessive is equally hollow.
Severe crimes require severe penalties.
Consider sentencing practices for the offences of murder and rape in the United States and then consider secondly, the fact that sentence for the offence of murder in Guyana and the wider Caribbean was at all material times the sentence of death.
It was Justice Singh who issued a written judgement clarifying the constitutional question of whether the penalty of death was mandatory a position that had prevailed in this jurisdiction to that juncture.
Whilst however, Dr. Campbell has highlighted the fact that the CCJ has intervened to reduce sentences imposed by Justice Singh, he has remained conspicuously silent as to the outcome of the Appeals in the Election cases emanating from the Court of Appeal of Guyana under the tenure of Chancellor Cummings.
Justice Singh has performed with excellence in the High Court of the Supreme Court of Guyana, delivering timely written judgements on every legal issue arising from proceedings before him, a circumstance that is not replicated across the board from jurists whom Dr. Campbell seeks to celebrate primarily for their positions.
Justice Singh’s rulings have at all times been grounded in the Law, not political bias.
Dr. Campbell’s silence on these decisions exposes the selective outrage fueling his narrative.
There continues to be arrears of timely written judgments from the judiciary.
The attack and criticism of Justice Singh by Dr. Terrence Campbell flows not from the fact that he is unworthy or unqualified to be the Chief Justice of Guyana, it appears driven by prejudice and concern of the author over his fearless approach as the incumbent Chief Justice within the judiciary of Guyana.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jnr. reminded us: “A man must not be judged by the colour of his skin, but by the content of his character.”
We are a nation on the threshold of greatness, considerations based on age old divisions and prejudice flowing from political preferences or ethnicity has no place among the citizenry or any arm of Government, more so from one who seeks to vilify judges for narrow political gain.
Anything less is hypocrisy.