PRESIDENT Bharrat Jagdeo yesterday said those who are claiming victory with the dropping in the National Assembly on Thursday of the controversial proviso in Clause 13 of Article 127 of the Constitution, haven't scored a victory because what really happened is the "country has lost".

The clause in the Constitutional (Amendment) (No. 4) Bill, one of three major constitutional bills passed in Parliament Thursday, deals with the appointment of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice, the two top posts in the Judiciary.

President Jagdeo told a news conference yesterday that Guyana has "lost" with the dropping of the proviso.

"The country lost; those who are claiming victory, they haven't scored a victory; this country has lost and that is what we are trying to correct", the President said.

He said the dropping of the proviso has created a condition in the Constitution that could lead to the holders of the top posts in the judiciary feeling insecure and not having security of tenure.

"And that bothers me as President of Guyana because it is not for tomorrow, it is not for five years from now but for 50 to 100 years from now...and you never know what will happen."

The President said he was very disappointed that the Opposition People's National Congress Reform (PNC/R) objected to the proviso.

"I am disappointed because something that we all were fighting for has suffered," the President said.

According to President Jagdeo, the Guyana Bar Association, members of civil society and some members of the Opposition and the Government all agreed to the need for a "strong, independent judiciary".

The key to a strong judiciary are clear rules about how they should be appointed, he said, stressing the importance of "security of tenure".

The President pointed out that security of tenure is very important because if people don't have it and if they are acting then they may come under undue pressure from the Executive branch of Government to act in a particular way or not because they want to be confirmed.

"Unfortunately, what happens here is that we were trying to avoid that situation," the President said.

"And I am very surprised that whilst the Bar Association came out and said you have to have an independent budget for the Judiciary because it is important for the independence of the judiciary, some members supported a provision that may result in the Executive making acting appointments."

"...because if we don't, and as it currently stands now and with what has been passed, if there is no agreement between the President and the Opposition Leader, the President after meaningful consultations, goes ahead and makes the acting appointment."

"...that is what we were trying to avoid...," he said.

"Can you imagine the two top posts in the judiciary not having security of tenure?"

"...and this is what we passed (Thursday) based on an insistence from the Opposition."

The proposed procedure for the appointment of the Chancellor and Chief Justice states, "The Chancellor and the Chief Justice shall each be appointed by the President, acting after obtaining the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition."

The PNC/R objected to the proviso which stated "provided that if there is no agreement within two months the President shall make the appointment taking into consideration the views of the Leader of the Opposition", which it claimed was inserted without its knowledge in Article 127 of the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 4) Bill 2001.

But Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Mr. Reepu Daman Persaud, like President Jagdeo, indicated that the proviso was well intentioned, noting that it would have only been invoked if there was no agreement within two months.

He also noted that the views of the Leader of the Opposition would have been taken into consideration when making the appointment.

A major thrust of the Constitution Amendment (No. 4) Bill is to provide for the independence of the judiciary by removing from Executive control the appointment of judges and the appointment of members of the Judicial Service Commission - the body given the duty to advise on the appointment of judges.

Another significant feature of this Bill is the removal of the office of the Auditor General from any form of Executive control, thereby ensuring the independence of the office.

The Bill seeks to amend the Constitution to give effect to some of the recommendations by the Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) in its report of July 20, 1999.