July 18, 2018 issue | |
Readers' Response |
|
Smugglers of contraband into jails must be severely penalized |
|
Dear Editor: |
|
An Independent Commission, not politicians, should be responsible for selecting Chancellor and Chief Justice | |
Dear Editor: Article 127(1) of the Constitution provides for the President to make appointments to the offices of Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice, with the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition. Presidents and Leaders of the Opposition have been unable to agree on the selection of Chancellors of the Judiciary and Chief Justices over the last 13 years. Two members of the Caribbean Court of Justice have recently criticized Guyana for placing pressure on the independence of senior members of the Judiciary by having them sit for several years in posts in which there is no security of tenure. Honourable Justices Sir Dennis Byron and Adrian Saunders have criticized the trend over the last 13 years whereby members of the Judiciary have not been substantively appointed, but have sat as ‘Acting’ justices for several years. This has been described by Justice Saunders as a “significant stain” on the Rule of Law (Ongoing lack of substantive Chancellor, CJ ‘significant stain’ on rule of law: Stabroek News, May 26, 2018.) The current constitutional processes of selection have been ineffectual. A 13-year period of ‘Acting’ Chancellors and Chief Justices is wholly unacceptable in a democratic society, which endeavours to uphold the principles of the Rule of Law, Separation of Powers and Independence of the Judiciary. Constitutional reform in Guyana has been long overdue and is now urgent and imperative. A revised process of selection of Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice is recommended. The process of selection should be independent and transparent. The Constitution should be amended to provide for selection of candidates by an Independent Selection Commission. Colin Bobb-Semple, Lecturer in Law, School of Law and Criminology, University of West London |
|
Berbice unfairly treated | |
Dear Editor: Why is Berbice being so severely discriminated against? Our national government seems comfortable with building, maintaining and subsidizing the operation of a new Demerara River Bridge (reportedly, in addition to the existing Demerara River Bridge); commuters pay the paltry sum of $100 for a car to use the bridge while the same commuter, who pays the same taxes to the Government, has to pay virtually twenty times more to cross the Berbice River Bridge… and now there are moves afoot to add insult to injury by a substantial increase in the fees to cross the Berbice Bridge. Is it not time for our ‘national government’ to simply assume full Ownership, Control and Management of the Berbice River Bridge and so relieve us Berbicians, who are the main users of the bridge, the heavy burden of yet another discriminatory charge to commute nationally, especially as most critical ‘national/civil services’ are located in the city of Georgetown? Please, Mr President & Cabinet, do consider some equitable treatment for us Berbicians! Nowrang Persaud, Berbician |
|
< Greater Toronto | |