The rules under Employment Law do not support Jonas’s last option

Dear Editor, I would like to most respectfully add to the perfect interpretation of Mr Timothy Jonas contained in his letter published in the Wednesday’s December 20, 2017 edition of your newspaper (‘Having appointed an acting Chancellor and CJ the President has exhausted his constitutional discretion’). The rule of management under Employment Law would not support the latter option mentioned by Mr Jonas in his closing sentence. A person appointed to act in position can be only removed as Mr Jonas rightly said on the basis of their resignation and/or becoming unfit.

Therefore, it can be said that “[t]hose worthies may now be contemplated by the Constitution to hold their acting positions…until a person is appointed substantively to the office with the consent of the Leader of the Opposition,” if one applies this provision of the Constitution, in this case. Thereafter the issue will become one of Employment Law. And the rules of management under Employment Law require that a person appointed to act in a particular position shall be given substantive appointment as long as the position is available for such substantive appointment.

In this case the President and the Leader of the Opposition will have to produce substantive evidential reason against the two worthies to suggest/ consent to substantive appointment of anyone other than the two worthies.

Yours faithfully, Amoura Giddings