Cummings-Edwards' move is no promotion

Dear Editor,

First, let me extend congratulations to Justice Yonnette Cummings-Edwards on her recent appointment as Chief Justice of the Turks and Caicos Islands. Any Guyanese serving at that level in another jurisdiction is, in principle, a point of national recognition.

However, beyond the ceremonial congratulations, it is important, particularly in the current political environment, to ground public discourse in facts, institutional structure, and jurisprudential record, rather than opportunistic political narratives.

Notably, opposition elements have sought to weaponise this appointment as evidence of alleged mistreatment within Guyana’s judicial system. That argument collapses under even the most basic institutional analysis.

Let us begin with structure.

In Guyana, Justice Cummings-Edwards served as Acting Chancellor, the apex of the judicial hierarchy. The Chancellor is head of the judiciary and presides over the Court of Appeal, the highest local court, with only the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) above it.

In practical terms, there was only one judicial tier above her authority, the CCJ.

By contrast, in the Turks and Caicos Islands:

– The Chief Justice presides over the Supreme Court.
– Above that sits the Court of Appeal, headed by a president (not the Chief Justice).
– Beyond that, the Privy Council serves as the final appellate authority.

This means there are two judicial layers above her position.

From a purely institutional standpoint, this is not an elevation, it is a reduction in judicial authority.

That is not an opinion. That is constitutional architecture.

But the more substantive issue is her judicial record.

Between 2018 and 2020, Guyana underwent one of the most litigated constitutional periods in its history. During this time, several rulings from the Court of Appeal, over which she presided in an acting capacity, were subsequently overturned or corrected by the CCJ.

The record is clear:

– In the No-Confidence Motion cases, the Court of Appeal ruled that 34 votes were required. The CCJ overturned this, confirming that 33 votes constituted a valid majority.
– In the 2020 elections litigation, the Court of Appeal advanced interpretations, particularly on “valid votes,” which the CCJ rejected entirely, both on jurisdiction and substance.
– Across multiple matters, the CCJ was required to restore constitutional clarity and correct expansive interpretations.

Importantly, these rulings were not unanimous. The positions ultimately overturned by the CCJ were advanced by the Chancellor and Justice Dawn Hastings. In contrast, Justice Rishi Persaud consistently adopted positions aligned with the High Court and, ultimately, the CCJ.

This distinction matters.

It demonstrates that even within the Court of Appeal itself, there was internal divergence between expansive interpretations and constitutionally grounded reasoning.

Further, this is not merely a domestic observation.

Professor Cynthia Barrow-Giles of the University of the West Indies, who led the CARICOM Recount Team, publicly noted that several appellate rulings were “highly questionable” and raised concerns about judicial independence. Her colleague, Dr Ronnie Yearwood, went further, suggesting that the courts were, at times, drawn into political battles and policymaking, rather than remaining strictly within their adjudicative role.

At the same time, both scholars highlighted a critical contrast: the role of then-Acting Chief Justice Roxane George, SC, whose rulings were widely regarded as grounded in probity, integrity, and constitutional discipline.

That contrast is instructive.

Because ultimately, the issue is not judicial office, it is judicial reasoning.

Against this backdrop, the current narrative being advanced is fundamentally flawed. This is not a case of displacement or elevation. It is a transition into a smaller jurisdiction, with a population of less than 50,000, and a more layered appellate structure.

None of this precludes effective performance.

But it does underscore a central point:

Judicial authority is not defined by title but by the consistency with which decisions align with the law.

Altogether, this appointment is neither a political loss nor a political victory. It is a professional transition within a different judicial framework, one that carries both opportunity and constraint. If her rulings in that jurisdiction are grounded firmly in the letter and spirit of the law, free from expansive interpretation and insulated from political undertones, then she will do well.

But that is the standard that must always apply.

Because in the final analysis, the true measure of any Judge is not the office they hold but whether their decisions withstand the scrutiny of the law.