Promote judges by seniority and merit

October 15, 2026·5 min read

Dear Editor,

Regarding Christopher Ram’s Business and Economic commentary, titled, “Calls for confirmation ignore judiciary’s fundamental problems,” (KWatch, October 14), he was spot-on as usual. I want to comment on his third paragraph from the bottom:

“The claims of other qualified candidates deserve consideration. Justice Deo Rishi Persaud was appointed to the High Court in 2004 and to the Court of Appeal in 2017, whereas the present acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh, was appointed to the High Court in 2012 and to the Court of Appeal in 2025. These differences do not automatically determine who should be appointed, but they demonstrate why confirmation should not be treated as a foregone conclusion. Neither seniority nor incumbency should replace a proper assessment of merit.”

That’s a very sensitive point given the appearance of undue interference and or influence by the executive branch over the judicial branch. Although the PPP inherited this interference/influence mess since 1992, it has chosen to further its existence rather than fix the mess, even though it knows the judicial branch is one of the three branches of government that serve as independent counterbalances in a democratic government system.

When it comes to the government system of employment, however, the opportunity for advancement up the ladder needs to be fully and frontally addressed to denude the system of political interference or influence. For historic perspective, under the British Constitution that predated what now passes for the Guyana Constitution, the three Service Commissions (Public Service, Police Service and Judicial Service) fell under the Governor General.

The composition and execution of duties by the commissions were designed in such a way to insulate state functions from political interference or influence. They made recommendations to the Governor-General, under whose authority official appointments under the commissions were formalized. The GG actually reported to the Queen. That arrangement changed when the Governor General’s responsibilities for the three commissions became incorporated into that of the Executive President, as per the 1980 Constitution.

With Forbes Burnham announcing at the 1974 Declaration at Sophia that the PNC was paramount over the State, the three Service Commissions became politicized. Ditto for the Teaching Service Commission, which was later launched under the Teaching Service Commission Act of 1975 (dated February 7, 1975), and officially came into operation on April 10, 1978.

When we fast forward to what is playing out today in the Judiciary, therefore, we have a politically bedeviled system when it comes to upward mobility for judicial officers. Although date-of-hire should be the starting point for promotion up the seniority ladder, a merit-based system that assesses one’s performance and potential for promotion can help weed out those who may ‘have the time’ that qualifies them for promotion, but not the ‘performance-based qualifications/qualities’. Ergo, the Judicial Service Commission, on recommendation for the Judiciary, should twin date-of-hire with merit-based performance for promotions and block out politically influenced selective promotions.

Take, for example, Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s repeated criticisms of judges who have been tardy in delivering written decisions they made a long time ago in civil court cases. He cited the ‘Time Limit on Judicial Decisions Act 2009’^[1], which sets a statutory time frame for judges to deliver written or oral decisions (with reasons) within 120 days (4 months) after the conclusion of hearings.

After maintaining that the judiciary is not immune to public scrutiny, and describing the practice of tardiness as illegal or a sign of negligence, he then cited Article 197 (3) of the Constitution of Guyana as permitting the removal of a judge from office for persistently failing to write decisions or continuously failing to give decisions and state reasons within the time specified by Parliament.

That veiled threat was then tested in a court case featuring the late Ramon Gaskin versus Attorney General Nandlall in 2024, when the CCJ ruled that the 120-day statutory time limit was directory rather than mandatory^[1], and that delays should be evaluated against objective constraints. Not surprisingly, the ‘constraints’ point was exactly what then acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire repeatedly butted heads with Nandlall over in defense of judges, forcing the government to belatedly, perhaps even grudgingly, hire more judicial officers.

The foregoing was cited as just one example in which government can cherry pick what performance (or even political) factors it wants to use in determining who gets promoted or even fired, even if the performance metrics used are skewered.

But it is also worth noting that the same Attorney General, who is considered the government’s top law enforcement officer and works in conjunction with the Director of Public Prosecutions and Guyana Police Force, has long appeared to have done little or nothing in several legal cases that made the news with no legal action taken.

Take the 2022 Vice Media revelations, for example.^[2] The recordings, still available on YouTube, feature Bharrat Jagdeo talking about his role and that of his former friend/tenant, Su, in negotiating government contracts for Chinese companies, while Su was caught talking about splitting fees with Jagdeo, that type of contract awarding really belongs to the public procurement system. But rather than the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Guyana Police Force taking the initiative to launch independent investigations, it was President Irfaan Ali who promised to investigate and did absolutely nothing.

The selective lack of action seems to fit neatly into a pattern of legally authorized actors waiting for a ‘greenlight’ from ‘upstairs’. Even the NPTAB, which awards government contracts to persons or companies, has made the news repeatedly for awarding contracts to persons and or companies that failed to meet the procurement rules and regulations required for receiving contracts. The Tepui pump station contract was so blatant that it shocked the nation when one of the company’s principals showed up at Jagdeo’s press conferences. It was as if the government didn’t care care who found out, yet the AG, DPP and GPF did nothing.

On September 7, 2025, President Ali promised to set up an Anti-Corruption Unit^[3], which was clearly an admission he knew and knows corruption is a problem, yet 13 months later, nothing. Two days ago, the Attorney General reportedly urged the nation’s parliamentary opposition to be more involved in seeking solutions to major issues that are affecting the nation beyond highlighting allegations of corruption. Clearly, he, too, gets it that corruption is a problem that both the Opposition and public are talking about.

I close by 1) reiterating my support for the twinning of seniority and performance-based meritocracy when promoting judicial officers, and not merely using court rulings that favor the government, 2) ending the executive branch running interference in the judicial branch, with no substantive Chancellor and Chief Justice since 2005, and 3) urging the AG, DPP and GPF to do their jobs by initiating investigations into government corruption rather wait for ‘greenlights’. The executive branch has no right lecturing the judicial branch or allowing outsiders to run interference in the judicial branch. The two are separate branches of government.

Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin

References

Time limit for judges’ decisions discretionary, not mandatory - CCJ - Stabroek News — www.stabroeknews.com ↩
Appoint commission into VICE allegations - Stabroek News — www.stabroeknews.com ↩
President promises dedicated anti-corruption unit - Stabroek News — www.stabroeknews.com ↩

Time limit for judges’ decisions discretionary, not mandatory - CCJ - Stabroek News

www.stabroeknews.com · 2024-07-07

By Femi Harris-Smith July 7, 2024 The statutory time limit within which judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal are required to deliver their full written judgments, is discretionary and not mandatory. This clarification was made by Guyana’s apex court—the Caribbean Court of Justice CCJ—when it ruled last two Thursdays ago in the case of Ramon Gaskin v the Attorney General of Guyana. Among the issues on which Gaskin asked the Court to pronounce, was whether the local High Court and Court of Appeal breached the statutory time limit for judgment delivery and if so, the effect this may have had on the judgments they delivered. ... Attorney General Anil (AG) Nandlall SC has often taken issue with judges delivering their written rulings beyond the period stated by the Time Limit on Judicial Decisions Act 2009; and within recent weeks has criticised the judiciary for this. ... Referring, however, in the Gaskin case to its earlier decision in Reid v Reid, the Caribbean Court of Justice was clear in pronouncing that the time limits for the delivery of judgments were “discretionary and not mandatory.” President of the court, Justice Adrian Saunders said in Gaskin that the time limits set out in the Act, “must be construed as being of a discretionary and not mandatory nature,” adding that “while a one-year delay should not be condoned, the Court had no way of knowing what objective difficulties, if any, faced the courts below.” In the Gaskin case, the Guyana Court of Appeal had held that Chief Justice George, who presided over the matter at the High Court, did not unduly delay giving of her decision nor was she in breach of the Time Limit Act. The Court of Appeal had reasoned that the drafters of the legislation did not intend that failure to comply with the 120-day time limit set out in the Act had the effect of invalidating decisions. “To hold otherwise would mean that all cases would have to be heard de novo or be abandoned once judgment was delivered outside the time limit,” the Court of Appeal said, adding that that could never be in the interest of justice and therefore the delay complained of by the Appellant could not render the decision void. ... Guyana’s final appellate court—the CCJ—would go on to affirm the Guyana Court of Appeal’s reasoning on this issue of the time limit delay. ... It underscored Guyana’s Time Limit for Judicial Decisions Act, as is one such example, specifying in Section 4 (1) that in civil cases a judge must render judgment “as soon as possible after the conclusion of the hearing but not later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of conclusion of the hearing.” Meanwhile, provision is made Section 8 of the Act, in exceptional circumstances, for the judge to seek an extension of time from the Chancellor. ... Making it clear, however, that no one should condone a one-year delay in giving judgment after the close of oral submissions, the CCJ said it had “no way of knowing what objective difficulties faced the court, if any.” Section 4 of the Time Limit on Judicial Decisions Act requires a High Court Judge to give decisions in a case no later than 120 days after the conclusion of the hearing. Section 5 of the Act mandates the Court of Appeal and the Full Court to issue their decisions not later than 30 days from the conclusion of the hearing.

Source

Promote judges by seniority and merit in Kiskadee Watch, October 15, 2026

Time limit for judges’ decisions discretionary, not mandatory - CCJ - Stabroek News

www.stabroeknews.com · 2024-07-07

By Femi Harris-Smith July 7, 2024 The statutory time limit within which judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal are required to deliver their full written judgments, is discretionary and not mandatory. This clarification was made by Guyana’s apex court—the Caribbean Court of Justice CCJ—when it ruled last two Thursdays ago in the case of Ramon Gaskin v the Attorney General of Guyana. Among the issues on which ... askin asked the Court to pronounce ... was whether the local High Court and Court of Appeal breached the statutory ... limit for judgment ... if so, the effect ... the judgments they delivered. ... Attorney General Anil (AG) Nandlall SC has often taken issue with judges delivering their written rulings beyond the period stated by the Time Limit on Judicial Decisions Act 2009; and within recent weeks has criticised the judiciary for this. ... Referring, however, in the Gaskin case to its earlier decision in Reid v Reid, the Caribbean Court of Justice was clear in pronouncing that the time limits for the delivery of judgments were “discretionary and not mandatory.” President of the court, Justice Adrian Saunders said in Gaskin that the time limits set out in the Act, “must be construed as being of a discretionary and not mandatory nature,” adding that “while a one-year delay should not be condoned, the Court had no way of knowing what objective difficulties, if any, faced the courts below.” ... The Court of Appeal had reasoned that the drafters of the legislation did not intend that failure to comply with the 120-day time limit set out in the Act had the effect of invalidating decisions. “To hold ... would mean that ... de novo or ... the time limit,” the ... Appeal said, ... by the Appellant could not ... Guyana’s final appellate court—the CCJ—would go on to affirm the Guyana Court of Appeal’s reasoning on this issue of the time limit delay. ... It underscored Guyana’s Time Limit for Judicial Decisions Act, as is one such example, specifying in Section 4 (1) that in civil cases a judge must render judgment “as soon as possible after the conclusion of the hearing but not later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of conclusion of the hearing.” Meanwhile, provision is made Section 8 of the Act, in exceptional circumstances, for the judge to seek an extension of time from the Chancellor. ... The CCJ said that in lieu of imposing by statute arbitrary time limits on a sister branch of government, parliaments and governments that are understandably concerned about delays in the administration of justice may have to resort to more effective measures to grapple with an undoubtedly serious problem. ... while it is true that ... judgment are so ... , without more ... Making it clear, however, that no one should condone a one-year delay in giving judgment after the close of oral submissions, the CCJ said it had “no way of knowing what objective difficulties faced the court, if any.” Section 4 of the Time Limit on Judicial Decisions Act requires a High Court Judge to give decisions in a case no later than 120 days after the conclusion of the hearing. Section 5 of the Act mandates the Court of Appeal and the Full Court to issue their decisions not later than 30 days from the conclusion of the hearing.

Appoint commission into VICE allegations - Stabroek News

www.stabroeknews.com · 2022-07-18

# Appoint commission into ... allegations Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo (left) being interviewed by VICE Media journalist ... ung By Stabroek News July 18, 2022 Former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran is urging President Irfaan Ali to set up a Commission of Inquiry to examine explosive allegations of bribery and money laundering contained in two VICE News reports on Chinese businessmen operating here and their alleged contacts with Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo. In his accountability column in today’s Stabroek News, Goolsarran noted that there had been further revelations by VICE News of alleged Chinese involvement in money laundering activities, the use of intermediaries and the paying of bribes to secure government contracts, especially in relation to large infrastructure developmental works being undertaken. Since then, Goolsarran noted that there has been a public outcry for an investigation to be carried out to determine the truth or otherwise of the allegations. He noted that President Ali responded by stating that the law enforcement and security agencies are expected to carry out their investigations. ... The two VICE News broadcasts have roiled the country and raised questions about the conduct of Chinese middlemen. Jagdeo was enmeshed in the allegations when the US-based VICE News sent an undercover businessman into his house with a hidden camera. Jagdeo has said that nothing in the hidden camera recording implicated him but he has threatened to sue the middleman Su Zhirong who had been heard in both segments of the VICE programme as stating that money goes to Jagdeo, an allegation that Jagdeo has vehemently denied. ... While Ali, Jagdeo and Home Affairs Minister Robeson Benn have signalled that the VICE News claims will be probed, there has been no statement on who will be investigating or when this will begin. There is also no word on the whereabouts of Su who would be the key figure in any investigation. The country first became aware of Su’s allegation of bribery when Jagdeo published the interview done by VICE with him on February 1st on his Facebook page on February 7th. On June 19, VICE published a 16-minute programme, `Guyana For Sale’ and followed this up with an expanded version on July 7th.

Promote judges by seniority and merit — Emile Mervin — Opinion