In a landmark constitutional judgment, High Court Justice Westmin James has delivered a scathing rebuke of a sitting Prime Minister’s administrative conduct, ruling that prolonged silence on appointment recommendations constituted an unconstitutional violation of a senior public officer’s rights.
The court upheld the constitutional claim brought by retired public service director John Edwards against the Attorney General, finding that the Prime Minister’s repeated failure to respond to Public Service Commission (PSC) consultations effectively created an illegal “de facto veto” that blocked Edwards’ career advancement unjustly.
Evidence presented to the court revealed that between 2010 and 2013, Edwards received multiple recommendations from the PSC to act as Deputy Permanent Secretary. However, the Prime Minister failed to respond to three separate consultation requests in 2012 while approving other officers’ appointments within normal timeframes. This selective administrative silence continued until August 2013, when approval finally came—coinciding exactly with Edwards’ commencement of pre-retirement leave, rendering the authorization practically useless.
Justice James determined that this conduct violated Sections 4(b) and 4(d) of the Constitution, pertaining to protection of the law and equality of treatment by public authorities. The ruling emphasized that while Section 121 grants the Prime Minister appointment veto power, this authority must be exercised rationally, independently, and without unreasonable delay.
The court awarded Edwards $250,000 in damages—$100,000 as compensatory damages for distress and inconvenience, and $150,000 as vindicatory damages to underscore the seriousness of the constitutional breaches and deter future similar conduct by public authorities.
Significantly, the judge rejected the State’s arguments regarding delay in filing the claim, accepting Edwards’ explanation that he only discovered the true reason for his non-appointment through Freedom of Information Act disclosures in 2022. The court recognized the case’s broader implications for constitutional governance and accountability, noting that permitting such administrative silence would enable executives to circumvent legal requirements and undermine independent constitutional bodies like the PSC.
The judgment establishes crucial precedent regarding ministerial accountability and the limits of executive power, asserting that administrative silence cannot serve as an indirect veto mechanism without transparency or justification.