Rev Cyril Clarke, Contributor

The matter regarding the Prime Minister's refusal to recommend the appointment of Professor Stephen Vasciannie as Solicitor General has generated much heated emotions, some because of misunderstanding, others by a wrong and strong attitude exhibited primarily by those bent on causing confusion and the flexing of political muscles.

Misunderstanding because they seem not to understand the role and privilege of the Prime Minister and the power invested in him by virtue of the Constitution. The Prime Minister is not second-fiddle to any in the country. He is not just the chief executive of the people, he is the supreme executive. He should not be subordinated to any as some would want him to be, nor should he compromise his rights and privileges in the present scenario.

Contrary to the views and opinions of the uninformed, the one who has the last word in the appointment of the Solicitor General is not the Governor-General (with due respect) or the Public Service Commission - some might mistakenly believe this - or the Leader of the Opposition, but the Prime Minister.

Until the Prime Minister satisfies himself of the suitability and fitness of the one selected by the Public Service Commission, and submitted to the Governor-General for appointment, the Governor-General cannot act until he first receives the Prime Minister's recommendation.

The operative word is 'recommendation.' The Prime Minister may choose to recommend or not to recommend. If he recommends, the appointment goes through, if he chooses not to, the proposal is returned to the Public Service Commission for reconsideration. And obviously and logically for new consideration.

The G-G cannot act

Ostensibly, then, the Solicitor General is appointed on the acceptance, approval and recommendation of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister does not approve and recommend the individual, the Governor-General cannot act.

In practice the process runs as follows:

1. The Public Service Commission receives and considers applications for consideration.

2. A selection is made and the successful applicant is referred to the Governor-General.

3. The Governor-General, in turn, refers the Public Service Commission selection to the Prime Minister for his approval and this is logical and correct as such a person will be required to work in association with the Government of the day.

4. The Prime Minister then consults with the Leader of the Opposition re the proposal.

5. Upon consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister recommends the applicant for appointment. If he does not, no appointment can take place as the Governor-General cannot act unilaterally.

It should be noted that while the Prime Minister may give due respect to the consideration of the Leader of the Opposition, he is not bound by his or her wishes, nor is he obliged to bow to his or her objections. He can act notwithstanding the Opposition's disapproval because he has the last word. Two bulls can't reign in the same pen. One must yield to the other and naturally its the weaker to the strong - the Opposition to the ruling party.

In this regard the power of the Public Service Commission does not supersede that of the Prime Minister, the elected head of Government. If for good and justifiable reasons he chooses not to accept the selection of the Public Service Commission but ask for a reconsideration, this should not be frowned upon, nor lead to abuse of the Prime Minister. He has not acted outside his bounds, nor abused power. He has done no more than is allowed by the Constitution, Chapter 9, part 1 Section 126 subsection 2. It's all within his rights and privileges.

Now if the Public Service Commission stoutly objects and defiantly refused to honour the request of the Prime Minister and his Government, wha does he have but to ask for the resignation of its members or to revoke their appointments? None!

Two cannot walk unless they agree. A wrong and strong attitude does not make for the harmonious relationship in good governance. In the present scenario, where then has the Prime Minister abused power or being a dictator?

After 45 years of Independence, it is high time we doff our prejudicial adversarial hats and adorn ourselves with one that is positive, patriotic and cooperative. It is time we cease this political one-upmanship game-playing and point-scoring and unite for the betterment of the country. It's time we move away from this to an enlightened and progressive path that will advance unity, goodwill and harmony.

Prime Minister Golding has done well since he assumed leadership of the country, notwithstanding the teething pains and the fact that he took the reins mid-stream the previous Government's budgetary arrangements and programmes, of which he is obliged to follow to some degree.

The reality of this seems to elude his critics who are hell-bent on undermining whatever gains he has made. It is unrealistic for him to attain 100 per cent of the promises made before September 3 in a matter of three months. He needs time, proper resources and timely legislation. 'Rome was not built in a day'.

What we have seen of Prime Minister Golding and his administration, thus far, is like a signpost pointing in a direction that says: "More and better things ahead." It's time to ACCENTUATE the positive and latch on to the AFFIRMATIVE.