Dear Editor,
I have been practicing law since 1971 and had the honour to have served as the Chief Magistrate of Guyana. As such I have a vested interest, apart from being a citizen of Guyana, to voice my views as to the judiciary and the rule of law in Guyana. I have never joined or been associated with any political party in Guyana. I make the above points as a prelude to any view or opinion I make in this article or may make in the future and the response from anyone to say that I am being political. Far from it!
When decisions or appointments are made by a government or a public institution and they are seemingly out of the ordinary or not in conformity with what is expected because of past decisions, it would be wise for there to be an explanation or rationale for the decisions or appointments. If none is forthcoming then it will surely lead to conjecture, assumptions, rumours or embarrassment and the loss of confidence in the decisions or appointments. If a decision or appointment is made in order to oust someone then more so, the person making the decision should ensure that there is a good cover for what has been done or is to be done. There was and is a lack of explanation and information surrounding the acting appointments of Madam Roxane George and Justice Navindra Singh as Acting Chancellor and Chief Justice respectively.
The President of Guyana under Article 127(2) of the Constitution of Guyana has the power to appoint such other of the judges to perform the functions of Chancellor or Chief Justice until there is a permanent appointment and such appointment should be made after meaningful consultation with the leader of the Opposition. I would with the greatest of respect to the President, submit that any appointment must not be done willy-nilly but should be sound, reasonable and as far as possible in keeping with the custom, criteria and experience of the person(s) to be appointed. The discretion is with the President but that does not preclude an examination to see if the discretion was used wisely.
Let me state immediately that I have no grudge or problem with any of the above two persons and it is my humble opinion that Madam Roxane George is the brightest and most learned judge in Guyana and she is destined to be elevated to the Caribbean Court of Justice sometime in the future. I would wish to give a chronology of events and appointments that are relevant to the issue at hand. These are as follows —
On the 19th July, 2017, the then President David Granger appointed Justice Deo Rishi Persaud as a Justice of Appeal of the Guyana Court of Appeal. Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud had previously been appointed a judge of the Supreme Court on the 30th June, 2004.
On the 29th October, 2012, Mr Navindra Singh was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Guyana. On the 21st May, 2025 he was elevated as a judge of the Guyana Court of Appeal.
On the 5th March, 2020, lawyers for the PPP/ Civic Party applied for and obtained an injunction from Justice Navindra Singh that restrained the Chief Election Officer and the Returning Officer for Region 4 Clairmont Mingo from declaring the election results unless done in compliance with the law. This Order from the High Court was proper and cured the breach that Mr Mingo was conjuring.
President Irfaan Ali on the 26th May, 2025 at the 59th Independence Flag Raising Ceremony announced that September 1, 2025 would be the date for the General and Regional Elections.
Acting Chancellor Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards had on the 4th August, 2025 proceeded on leave. The period would cover the period during and after the elections.
On 5th August, 2025, President Irfaan Ali swore in the Acting Chief Justice Roxane George to act as the Chancellor of the Judiciary and Justice Navindra Singh to act as the Chief Justice of Guyana.
On the 23rd October, 2025 Acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards returned to her office at the Guyana Court of Appeal from her leave. She had no problem in having her office as Justice Roxane George vacated the office as she knew that her acting appointment as Chancellor was during the absence of the Acting Chancellor Cummings-Edwards and that had ended,
Justice Roxane George being of the sound belief that she was now reverting back to her former position as acting Chief Justice and without any notification from the President of Guyana or his office or from the Judicial Service Commission
proceeded to her office in the Supreme Court to resume her duties.
Upon arriving at her office, Justice Roxane George could not gain access to her office as apparently Justice Navindra Singh still occupied it and although aware that Justice Roxane George had returned, did not vacate it.
There was an article on the 24th October, 2025 in the Kaieteur News that had the headlines “Confusion in the Courts— Chief Justice shut out of chambers after Chancellor’s return.”
Up to the date of writing this article, there has been no explanation why Justice Roxane George had to suffer the indignity of being locked out of her office and or why the confusion arose and or that the news item was incorrect.
On the said 24th October, 2025 several hours after the Kaieteur News headline, President Irfaan Ali made an announcement that Justice Roxane George will continue to act as Chancellor and Justice Navindra Singh will also continue to act as Chief Justice.
President Irfaan Ali in his announcement made the startling and unexpected pronouncement that Madam Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards will proceed on pre-retirement leave. Prior to this there had been no indication or rumour of her going on pre-retirement leave. Not a whisper!
To date, there has been no announcement or communication from Madam Cummings-Edwards as to why she suddenly decided to proceed on pre-retirement leave. I must confess that I am unaware as to when she had to retire and how many months or years that she may have had before having to retire but I am informed that it was about two years. As I stated at the beginning of this article that when there is a paucity of information or none at all, persons will come to conclusions on the facts and the circumstantial evidence before them. It does seem that something occurred and or was said to or offered to Madam Cummings-Edwards for her make the decision to proceed on pre-retirement leave.
I have drawn the following conclusions and if I am wrong, then I will apologize. Indeed I do hope that I am incorrect.
Acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards was not liked by the government as a result of the majority decision(s) of the Court of Appeal that she gave with the appeals pertaining to the 2020 elections. Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory-Barnes was the other judge that made up the majority. These decisions were overturned by the Caribbean Court of Justice and I was in agreement with them being overturned.
When Madam Cummings-Edwards applied to proceed on leave, the plan was hatched to have her removed. The plan also included to have Justice Navindra Singh being appointed to act as Chief Justice in order to cover any case that might come up before or after the elections to be held on the 1st September, 2025.
In order to appoint Justice Navindra Singh, Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud had to be bypassed even though he was a very senior judge by many, many years. The practice in the past is that a senior judge of the Court of Appeal would be appointed to act as Chief Justice when necessary. Justice Navindra Singh had only been appointed a court of appeal judge in May 2025 whilst Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud had been a court of appeal judge since July 2017.
I am unable to make a firm conclusion whether at the beginning of the plan to appoint Justice Navindra Singh to act as chief justice, it included for him to remain in that position.
However, I do believe that I am on safe grounds to reasonably conclude that it was decided before Acting Chancellor Cummings-Edwards came back from her leave that she would be forced to retire and or enticed to do so and that Justice Navindra Singh would remain as acting chief justice. This decision was apparently communicated to Justice Navindra Singh and it is the only reasonable conclusion why he remained in Justice Roxane George’s office and did not vacate it although she came to her office. Justice Navindra Singh is a decent, honourable and ambitious person. He had and has the greatest of respect for Justice Roxane George. He would never, never shut her out of her office unless he was instructed to do so.
Again, Justice Rishi Persaud in this continuing chess play was bypassed. He had been a competent judge in the Supreme Court and in the Court of Appeal. His record at the Caribbean Court of Justice is excellent.
Since Justice Navindra Singh’s appointment as acting chief justice, he has worked hard, brought applications for probate and letters of administration up to a waiting period of weeks, has as in the past given his decisions promptly. I cannot fault him as he was given the opportunity to be chief justice and in time, he may turn out to be an excellent chief justice.
I do, however, fault and do not support the bypassing of Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud as I am unaware of any good and proper reason why he is unable to fulfill the duties of chief justice.
As regards the appointment of acting Chancellor Roxane George, I commend it as there is no better person to be so appointed and she should be confirmed as chancellor as quickly as possible. These long periods of acting appointments have been a blight on our judiciary and more so on those whose responsibility it is to make the respective appointments.
I wish to state that what was done to Madam Cummings-Edwards to force her to retire without giving her the opportunity to retire with dignity was wrong and failed to consider the decades that she served in the public service. I do hope that there is never a repeat of such an occurrence. I did say that I was drawing conclusions and would be happy to learn that my conclusions were erroneous but if they are not then this not good for the judiciary and for Guyana. Lastly, I was and am disappointed that the Guyana Bar Association remained silent on this issue.