Black Immigrant Daily News

With national stakeholder consultations on constitutional reform expected to start after the Constitutional Reform Commission is in place, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, is hopeful that the method for appointing the Chancellor and Chief Justice is one of the many things examined and pronounced on.

He made these observations while participating in a virtual town hall meeting set up by the University of the West Indies Cave Hill campus which dealt with constitutional reform and the judicial selection process.

Noting that a two-thirds majority is needed in the National Assembly to make changes to the Constitution, the Attorney General was hopeful that the recommendations that do come out of the constitutional reform consultations, find bipartisan support.

“Guyana is poised to go on a wide-ranging constitutional reform process. Which is going to involve the establishment of a broad-based constitutional commission, that will do widespread consultations across the country,” he said.

“And hopefully, one of the provisions which will be microscopically examined in this process is the very article that speaks to the appointment of a Chancellor and Chief Justice. And hopefully, we will get recommendations out of that process that will find political consensus.”

According to the Attorney General, Guyana is possibly the only country in the Commonwealth where the Head of State and the Leader of the Opposition have to agree on a common candidate before that person can be confirmed. He noted that with this constitutional change, confirmations to the two most senior positions in the Judiciary have been gridlocked.

“We are perhaps the only country in the Commonwealth, where the Chief Justice and the Chancellor are to be appointed by the President, the head of the Executive, only upon agreement from the Leader of the Opposition. And that’s a constitutional formula embedded in our Constitution, entrenched in the most profound way.”

“And since that change occurred, the reality unfortunately is that we have never been able to appoint a Chancellor, nor a Chief Justice substantially to those offices. Because we have never been able to secure an agreement between the President and the Leader of the Opposition,” Nandlall said.

Nandlall pointed out that since 2005, retired Justice Desiree Bernard was the last confirmed Chancellor before she was appointed to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Meanwhile, retired Justice Carl Singh was Guyana’s last confirmed Chief Justice, in addition to being acting Chancellor, before he retired from that role in 2017.

“Acting appointments can be made in the face of a deadlock or failure to achieve an agreement by meaningful consultation between the President and the Leader of the Opposition. The other Judges in the Judiciary are appointed in the conventional method that obtains in the rest of the Caribbean. That is to say, the recommendation comes from a Judicial Service Commission, and the appointments are made by the President.”

He expressed the belief that while amendments were brought into the Constitution in 1999 that protected the Judiciary, it is also important for the conversation to continue on how to improve on these amendments.

“I believe there is a strong connection between an independent Judiciary, which includes the process by which the Judiciary is appointed, and the democratic equation. As the conversation goes on, we can continue to deal with what obtains now in Guyana, having regard to the non-appointment of these two positions and the way decisions are unfolding, in particular in political type cases,” Nandlall said.

Back in August of this year, the Government presented the Constitution Reform Commission Bill 2022 in the National Assembly, which seeks the establishment of a Constitution Reform Commission to review the country’s supreme laws.

According to the explanatory memorandum of the Bill, the proposed Constitution Reform Commission will consist of 20 members who will be drawn from the governing People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), the opposition A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) and one member from political party A New and United Guyana (ANUG).

One member each will also be drawn from the Guyana Bar Association, the Labour Movement, the National Toshaos Council, the private sector, representatives of women organisations, youth organisations, Christian, Hindu, and Muslim organisations, as well as nominees representing farmers.

NewsAmericasNow.com

Black Immigrant Daily News

Former Treasury chief Rishi Sunak won the race to be leader of the Conservative Party on Monday and will become Britain’s next prime minister — the third this year.

The former Treasury chief will be Britain’s first leader of colour, and faces the task of stabilising the party and country at a time of economic and political turbulence.

His only rival, Penny Mordaunt, conceded and withdrew.

As leader of the governing party, he will take over as prime minister from Liz Truss, who quit last week after 45 tumultuous days in office.

Sunak had been the strong favourite as the governing Conservative Party sought stability at a time of immense economic challenges and after months of chaos that consumed the past two leaders.

Sunak’s position strengthened after former leader Boris Johnson dropped out of the Conservative Party leadership contest. The party is choosing Britain’s third prime minister this year following Liz Truss’ resignation after a turbulent 45-day term.

Sunak lost out to Truss in the last Conservative election, but his party and the country now appear eager for a safe pair of hands to tackle soaring energy and food prices and a looming recession. The politician steered the economy through the coronavirus pandemic, winning praise for his financial support for laid-off workers and shuttered businesses.

He has promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability” if he forms a government — a nod to the growing to desire for a leader who can tackle the country’s problems.

Earlier in the day, the 42-year-old was the only candidate with confirmed support from more than 100 lawmakers, the number needed to run in the election, with his backers claiming he has been endorsed by more than half the 357 Conservative lawmakers in Parliament. Mordaunt had hoped to reach the threshold by the time nominations closed — but she backed out.

That means Sunak is now the Conservative Party leader and will be asked by King Charles III to form a government. He will become the prime minister in a handover of power from Truss later Monday or on Tuesday.

Sunak, who was Treasury chief from 2020 until this summer, quit in July in protest at Johnson’s leadership.

Johnson dramatically quit the race on Sunday night, ending a short-lived, high-profile attempt to return to the prime minister’s job he was ousted from little more than three months ago amid ethics scandals.

Johnson spent the weekend trying to gain support from fellow Conservative lawmakers after flying back from a Caribbean vacation. Late Sunday he said he had amassed the backing of 102 colleagues. But he was far behind Sunak in support, and said he had concluded that “you can’t govern effectively unless you have a united party in Parliament.”

The prospect of a return by Johnson had thrown the already divided Conservative Party into further turmoil. He led the party to a thumping election victory in 2019, but his premiership was clouded by scandals over money and ethics that eventually became too much for the party to bear.

In his Sunday statement, Johnson insisted he was “well placed to deliver a Conservative victory” in the next national election, due by 2024. And he said that he likely would have won a ballot of Conservative Party members against either of his rivals.

“But in the course of the last days I have sadly come to the conclusion that this would simply not be the right thing to do,” he said.

He hinted he might be back, however, saying: “I believe I have much to offer but I am afraid that this is simply not the right time.”

Truss quit Thursday after a turbulent 45 days in office, conceding that she could not deliver on her botched tax-cutting economic package, which she was forced to abandon after it sparked fury within her party and weeks of turmoil in financial markets.

The Conservative Party turmoil is fueling demands for a national election. Under Britain’s parliamentary system, there does not need to be one until the end of 2024, though the government has the power to call one sooner.

Currently, that looks unlikely. Opinion polls say an election would spell disaster for the Conservatives, with the left-of-centre Labour Party winning a large majority.

___

By JILL LAWLESS Associated Press

NewsAmericasNow.com

Black Immigrant Daily News

Jean-Michel Hauteville jm.hauteville@agmedias.fr

À la fin de cette campagne, les pêcheurs se réuniront pour un débriefing. • PHOTO ARCHIVES FRANCE-ANTILLES

La saison de la pêche aux oursins s’ouvre ce lundi 24 octobre, mais pour seulement quatre jours et uniquement sur les côtes du sud de l’île. Quelque 150 marins pêcheurs participeront à cette campagne 2022. Pour le comité régional des pêches, l’impératif est de préserver cette espèce tout en permettant aux Martiniquais de continuer à déguster un mets dont ils sont friands.

NewsAmericasNow.com

Black Immigrant Daily News

A Cayman Islands Court of Appeal judgment dated September 16, 2022 stated that the Immigration Appeals Tribunal (“IAT”) acted illegally, irrationally and unreasonably by summarily dismissing the appeal of Mrs Jack-Chowtee, a lady who applied for permanent residency on two occasions.

Bearing much in common with many other cases, Mrs Jack-Chowtee’s story started in February, 1997 when she came to Cayman from Jamaica on a work permit. During this time, she worked as a domestic helper for various employers, and then as a kitchen helper/dish-washer in a restaurant.

By February 2005 she was married and had a son, born in Grand Cayman.

In February 2005, she also applied for permanent residence for the first time, with her husband and their son as her dependents.

However, her application was refused by the Caymanian Status and Permanent Residency Board (the “Board”) by letter dated August 10, 2007 because, at that time, as she was only awarded 90 points and not the 100 points required under the applicable point system.

Mrs Jack-Chowtee then appealed the Board’s decision on August 29, 2007, and the IAT awarded her further points for community service, taking her to 95 points.

Not having met the 100 points required, she was advised to apply for a final one-year work permit, and she worked under that condition until May 2013.

Mrs Jack-Chowtee then applied for permanent residency for a second time on May 7, 2013.

In her 2013 application, Mrs Jack-Chowtee relied on evidence of the impending purchase of a parcel of land on which a home was to be built, which could have earned her up to a maximum of 20 points if she could demonstrate that this was an “investment” in the Cayman Islands.

Unfortunately, Mrs Jack-Chowtee received no points for this investment, leaving her with a total of 84 points.

The Board’s reasoning for not awarding any points for “investment” was as follows:

The Appellant did not provide evidence of any investment in property in the Islands nor in a local business, therefore no points were awarded under this category…

It was also noted that an analysis had been made that “In view of the previous purchase history and the developers being unable to confirm ownership by the Appellant, the Board was not minded to award points for Financial Investment on the basis of the minimal deposit of CI$2,500 on a transaction which has no guarantee of being completed and in which the Appellant has no proof of ownership.”

In response to this, Mrs Jack-Chowtee filed a notice of appeal to the IAT on July 15, 2013, which the Court of Appeal said that the IAT dismissed summarily.

As to its reasons for summary dismissal, the IAT’s letter dated October 14 2013 stated as follows:

The Tribunal having carefully considered the Notice of Appeal dated 15th July 2013, including the grounds of appeal dated 26th September 2013 and all other submissions made by or on behalf of the above named appellant for this appeal, determined that insufficient grounds of appeal had been made out pursuant to Section 15(2) and 16(4) of the Immigration Law (2012 Revision).

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Mrs Jack-Chowtee then appealed the decision of the IAT, which was ultimately dismissed in the Grand Court by the Honourable Mr. Justice Richard Williams, according to a judgment published on March 6, 2015.

Following this, Mrs Jack-Chowtee was made to wait several years to have her further appeal heard by the Court of Appeal in 2022.

As to the period of time which elapsed between 2015 and now, the Court of Appeal had this to say:

This is an appeal which time has unfortunately forgot, as may be seen from the title of this action. After many years in which the Appellant, Mrs Carmen Jack-Chowtee, has sought to persuade the Attorney-General to concede her appeal, without substantive reply from the Attorney-General, new counsel in the Attorney-General’s Chambers, Mr Michael Steven Smith, has taken action to bring the matter to a hearing in this Court, for which all concerned must be grateful.

After analysing the actions of the IAT and reviewing the 2015 judgment of the Grand Court, the Court of Appeal said that “In the circumstances, the Court allowed the appeal and granted the declaration prayed that Mrs Jack-Chowtee qualifies for Permanent Residence and Employment Rights and that her dependents be included.”

In giving its reasons for the judgement, the Court of Appeal said:

The question before the IAT was not whether she could prove her ownership conclusively, but whether she had presented a prima facie case of investment which arguably could have raised her points to the necessary number of 100. The IAT did not ask itself that question before summarily dismissing her appeal.

The Court of Appeal’s note of the incorrect conclusions reached by the IAT and the wait time experienced by Mrs Jack-Chowtee (“without substantive reply from the Attorney-General,” as the Court of Appeal put it) now raises concerns about the proper processing of permanent residency applications.

In fact, the knowledge of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in her case is likely to lead to the commencement of court actions, challenging recent PR dismissals and decisions of the IAT and relevant board.

NewsAmericasNow.com