By Travis Chase | HGP Nightly News|
GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — The Alliance For Change (AFC) has launched a blistering critique against the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), labeling its recent public handling of senior judicial promotions as “unprofessional, untidy, and highly disrespectful” to the institutional decorum of the nation’s courts.
The political pushback follows an official social media update from the JSC announcing that Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman has been formally appointed as Guyana’s substantive Chief Magistrate. While state agencies welcomed the move, the AFC expressed outrage on Thursday over the commission’s decision to break the news via a casual Facebook post. The party warned that using informal social media channels to communicate high-level constitutional appointments devalues the judicial bench and actively erodes public trust in independent state organs.
“The announcement of a position as prestigious as Chief Magistrate should never be relegated to a routine social media upload,” the AFC stated in a comprehensive press release. “Both Magistrate Judy Latchman and Magistrate Faith McGusty deserve to be treated with the highest level of professional courtesy, respect, and institutional decorum. This casual approach undermines the very integrity of the judiciary.”
The Constitutional Backlog Controversy
The opposition’s criticisms center on a massive timeline discrepancy revealed in the JSC’s official announcement:
- The Retroactive Backdate: The JSC’s notice explicitly states that the decision to appoint Magistrate Latchman was finalized as far back as January 7, 2025.
- The 18-Month Silence: The commission failed to publish or implement the promotion for over a year and a half, keeping the decision hidden from the public until mid-July 2026.
- The Acting Ambiguity: Throughout this lengthy delay, Principal Magistrate Faith McGusty was left to diligently perform the grueling, daily administrative duties of the Chief Magistrate in an acting capacity.
- The Demand for Clarity: The AFC noted that the long-standing administrative silence has raised legitimate suspicions among legal professionals and civil society, creating unnecessary friction between two sitting magistrates.
[ TIMELINE OF THE APPOINTMENT IMPASSE ]
│
Jan 7, 2025 July 2026
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
▼ ▼
[ Executive Decision ] [ Public Disclosure ]
- JSC confirms Latchman - Break via Facebook post
- File kept confidential - Backdate revealed
- McGusty runs court as "Acting" - Sparks sharp AFC pushback
“We want to make it absolutely clear that our party is not questioning the competence, legal acumen, or suitability of Magistrate Latchman for this seat,” the AFC clarified to reporters. “Our concerns relate solely to the sloppy, delayed manner in which this appointment was communicated. The public and the legal fraternity are owed a transparent explanation from the JSC as to why an executive decision was sat on for nearly 18 months.”
The opposition party emphasized that Guyana’s legal history has been plagued by prolonged controversies and structural gridlocks over top judicial appointments—most notably the decades-long failure to confirm a substantive Chancellor and Chief Justice. The AFC argued that the JSC should be hyper-vigilant in avoiding administrative lapses that invite suspicion of political meddling or internal favoritism. As legal analysts call for a return to formal gazetted publications and official state press conferences for judicial affairs, the JSC has yet to issue a formal response to the political blowback surrounding its digital communication strategies.
