High Court to rule on President’s power to appoint Senior Counsel

High Court Justice Nareshwar Harananan is set to hand down a decision on Thursday, in the case filed by Attorney-at-law, Timothy Jonas, to quash former President David Granger’s appointment of four Senior Counsel.
During a hearing into the matter yesterday, the Court heard submission from several attorneys involved, including Jonas’ attorney and President of the Bar Association, Teni Housty, who argued the decision of whom is appointed to the S.C. inherently lies with the Full Bench of the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature and not the President.

Housty stressed as the President and a member of the Executive, Granger’s decision to appoint Senior Counsel, trespasses into the realm of the judiciary and violates Article 122 of the Constitution of Guyana which speaks to the doctrine of the separation of powers.
As such, the attorney is arguing that there is no statutory or other power conferred on the President of Guyana whether as President or otherwise, to make any such decision to appoint attorneys-at-law to the dignity of Senior Counsel.
He therefore noted that if the presidential appointment is permitted to stand, the effect of the administration of Justice would be devastating.

However, in response, Attorney General (AG), Anil Nandlall, who was recently selected to be S.C. by President Irfaan Ali argued against the case claiming that it lacks merit and should have never been filed.
Nandlall held that the President has had the power to confer silk since independence. He explained that after Guyana gained independence the power was transferred to the President as the Head-of-State from the queen.
The queen, he said, would appoint lawyers to the higher dignity of the bar before Guyana gained independence.
“That power,” he argued, “was transferred to the President, where it remains and was never vested in the judiciary.”

As such, Nandlall said that no case can be made out against the clear authority of the President. The AG had noted in a previously filed response that while Jonas’ application may bear some veracity, he does not embrace compendiously and comprehensively all the virtues, qualifications, advantages and privileges and status which the conferral of the dignity of silk accords.
Nandlall also expressed disagreement with the notion that the President, as a member of the Executive, cannot promote members of the bar as it breaches the doctrine of the separation of powers.
Jonas, a lawyer who was also recently selected by President Ali for appointment to Senior Counsel had moved to the High Court to challenge Granger’s appointment of Attorneys-at-Law, Jameela Alli, Roysdale Forde, Mursalene Bacchus and Stanley Moore as Senior Counsel (S.C).

In this case, Jonas wants an Order of Certiorari to be directed to the Attorney General to quash the decision by the President to appoint the members of the bar.
Jonas is contending that the President, in making the appointments, acted ultra vires or outside the realm of his functions.
Following yesterday’s hearing, Jonas was asked for a comment on the reasoning of his stance in the matter given the fact that he too benefited from an appointment to S.C. by a President.
In reply the lawyer said that “the judiciary has approved me so in my opinion all is well.”

He noted, nonetheless, that the court has to pronounce on the case before he decides what he can do.
The lawyer opined that “People tend to forget that is the purpose of the court. To tell us, what the law is and what we should do. So let us await the court ruling.”
Further, he said that “The important issue is that, the process must be transparent and any formal decision must lie with the judiciary.”