Dear Editor,
Once again, Mr. Aubrey Norton is at it, making statements on constitutional matters on which, albeit not being a lawyer, he should nevertheless have a clearer understanding, given his long experience both as a politician and more specifically, a parliamentarian.
Mr. Norton insists that there are no vacancies among the opposition nominees on GECOM; thus, not unlike the refrain of militant trade unionists, the three opposition Commissioners “shall not be moved”. In fact, the ex-Leader of the Opposition (ex-LOO)has gone so far as to refer to it as a “permanent Commission, and unless there is a change of law, those Commissioners would remain there”.
In fairness to him, Mr. Norton has also said that if any of the three opposition-nominated Commissioners were to resign, then their seat would become vacant. To be fair to his constituents, he should add that a vacancy could also arise as provided for in Article 225 of the Constitution, which is entitled “Removal from office of certain persons”, as a result of his or her inability to discharge the functions of the office of Commissioner (sickness or other cause) or for misbehaviour.
What seems to be lost on Mr. Norton and many of his lusty followers is the fact that none of the three Commissioners in question are being “removed” from office, per Article 225. Rather, their term of office has expired, in other words, run its course. Through the expression of the will of the electorate at the ballot box – the same “stakeholders” that Mr. Vincent Alexander claims he is representing, rather than the political party(ies) that put him there – the votes that they cast resulted in a reconfiguration of the seats on the opposition benches in the Assembly.
In the premises, the “squatting” Commissioners can not purport to now (automatically?) represent the 109,000 persons who voted for the WIN party, the largest block of votes among the parties that comprise the opposition. In other words, the results of the 2025 elections have produced a new LOO who, having replaced Mr. Norton as the appointor, must be given the latitude to retain or replace the three appointees.
So how does one come to this fairly straightforward conclusion, you might ask? The answer is simple, by a process of logical deduction and interpretation: the phrase ‘the Leader of the Opposition’ appears in various provisions in the Constitution, for example, the appointment of Chancellor and Chief Justice (Article 127); the Elections Commission (Article 161); the election of the Leader of the Opposition (Article 184); and members of the Judicial and Public Service Commissions (Articles 198 and 200).
Throughout the text of the Constitution, the term ‘Leader of the Opposition’ can only refer to one person and one person only, namely the sitting LOO, that is, the person occupying the office of Leader of the Opposition at that particular point in time. It is by this simple methodology that at the material time, when the meeting for the election of the LOO was finally called by the Speaker earlier this year, Mr. Azruddin Mohamed assumed that Office by dint of the most votes cast for the WIN party. Going forward, for the other constitutional appointment mentioned above, it is once again Mr. Azruddin Mohamed who will be called upon to perform the functions of LOO.
So then how could it be contended that the LOO could be a different person – Mr. Norton, or Mr. Granger – in the case of the appointment under Article 161(3) of three members of the Elections Commission, on the advice of ‘the Leader of the Opposition’? Earlier in the same Article 161, in a sub paragraph of paragraph (2), it is similarly ‘the Leader of the Opposition’ who must submit names not unacceptable to the President, for the post of Chairman of the Elections Commission. Who is the LOO to be, if not Mr. Azruddin Mohamed? The LOO cannot be personalised; in fact, it is the Office, not the personage, that is contemplated in these provisions of the Constitution.
Those who wish to justify the maintenance of the status quo at GECOM beyond the expiry date of the three opposition Commissioners assert that there is no explicit provision in the constitution that brings to an end their term of office – hence the contention of “permanency” of the membership. It is submitted however, that there is no need for such a provision: as explained above, by a combination of logic, common sense and the doctrine of necessity, it could not have been the intendment of the framers of the Constitution that appointments of opposition Commissioners made in a two-party context over several election cycles, could survive a reconfiguration of the parliamentary landscape wherein there emerged a third party which garnered the most opposition votes and produced a new LOO.
To the proponents of the theory of permanent membership I ask the following question: if the election fortunes of the political parties had produced a result whereby Mr. Azruuddin Mohamed was elected President and President Ali or General Secretary Jagdeo had become the LOO, would this permanence still apply to make Messrs. Alexander, Corbin and Trotman continue to receive their salary and emoluments as ‘members…appointed…in accordance with the advice of ‘the Leader of the Opposition’ under Article 161(3)?
Yours sincerely,
Neville Bissember
