I write to you as a concerned Guyanese.
Despite blatant intimidation by Government Members of Parliament on the 21st day of December 2018, a No Confidence Motion [NCM] was passed in Guyana’s Parliament against the President Granger Government. Despite initially honouring the said vote, the Government then embarked on a frivolous delaying series of Court Actions that went all the way to the highest domestic court, the Caribbean Court of Justice. Interalia the Government ludicrously claimed that a vote of thirty-three for such a NCM and with a vote of thirty-two against it, did not constitute a valid passage of a NCM. Not surprisingly, the Caribbean Court of Justice on the 18th day of June 2019, upheld the NCM as being valid. They also said that the Government’s unilateral appointment of the Election Commissioner, was unconstitutional. This illegal appointment has also served to delay the holding of timely elections.
Articles 106 (6) and 106 (7) of the Guyana Constitution require upon the passage of a NCM, the resignation of the President and Cabinet, and also stipulates that the Government remains in office in a care-taking capacity, pending elections within ninety days, unless in the interim a two thirds majority vote of the Parliament [National Assembly] occurs to extend the time limit for such longer period as Parliament shall determine.
If the Caretaker Government fails to hold elections within the said ninety-day period or get a Parliamentary extension, the Caretaker Government becomes unconstitutional. The Caribbean Court of Justice observed that there was a pause in the ninety day time period as a result of the court challenges. The clock resumed counting down on the 18th day of June 2019, hence the second period of ninety days expired on the 18th day of September 2019. Parliament by effluxion of time also ceased to exist on the 18th day of September 2019, and has now been formally dissolved by the Government which remains in office claiming bona fides under the purported Law of Necessity.
However, Article 95 (1)(b) of the Guyana Constitution pellucidly sets out the position in just such a scenario as we are in at present, namely:
Article 95: Vacancy in office of President / Head of State Replacement:
1. During any period when the office of President is vacant the office shall be assumed by-
a. the Prime Minister: Provided that if the vacancy occurs while the Prime Minister is absent from Guyana or while he is by reason of physical or mental infirmity unable to perform the functions of his office, the functions of the office of President shall, until the Prime Minister returns or until he is again able to perform the functions of his office, as the case may be, be discharged by such other Minister, being an elected member of the National Assembly, as the Cabinet shall elect;
or b. if there is no Prime Minister, by such Minister, being an elected member of the National Assembly, as the Cabinet shall elect; or c. if there is no Prime Minister and no Cabinet, by the Chancellor [as the Head of the Judiciary].
2. Any Minister performing the functions of the office of President by virtue of the proviso to paragraph (1)(a) shall cease to perform those functions if he is notified by the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister is about to assume the office of President.
3. An assumption of the office of President under this article shall terminate, if it has not previously terminated, when a person who has been elected to the office in accordance with the provisions of article 177 assumes the office.
Hence at present there is no Constitutional President; no Constitutional Prime Minister; no Constitutional Cabinet; no Constitutional National Assembly; and indeed no Constitutional Leader of the Opposition. Article 95 (1) (b) of the Guyana Constitution ought to be activated to move Guyana back into Constitutional Government, with the appointment of the Chancellor as President , in the interregnum, until a new President is elected and forms a government.
The failure of the Granger Government to respect the Constitution has adversely impacted the economy and potentially the environment as this usurpation of power has put a hold on investment in the crucial pre-oil 2019 year, and prevented oil revenue and environmental related legislation from being passed by Parliament. When the previous Government of Donald Ramotar dissolved Parliament [albeit constitutionally] in order to avoid a NCM, the current members of the Government correctly criticised his actions [as I also did via an on-line Petition] as being undemocratic. Today they themselves have not only acted undemocratically but also unconstitutionally.
The care-taker status of the Granger Government lapsed since the 18th day of September 2019. As the Caribbean Court of Justice stated in the Jagdeo Presidential Term Case, "The passage of time cannot make valid that which was void ab initio". All actions and decisions taken by the Granger Government post the 18th day of September 2019 expiration deadline, are illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional, and thus legally challengeable, including the announcement of an election date.
To allow this untenable unconstitutional situation to continue is a recipe for future instability. Article 95 (1) (b) of the Guyana Constitution needs to be respected in order to bring Guyana back into constitutionality.
I call upon CARICOM to be pro-active in this regard and to make the required representations to the Granger Government.
Lalu Hanuman, Attorney-at-law.
Dover Gardens, Dover, Christchurch,
Barbados. |
Dear Editor:
Mr Ramkarran, in his column “Small parties’ concerns are a distinct feature of the coming elections” (SN, Dec 29/19) writes, “The significance of small parties on this occasion is not what amount of votes they will capture but whether one or more together will hold the balance of power, as APNU and AFC together did in 2011”.
While this may be true, the problem is the multiplicity of new small parties, a total of 14 (Stabroek News, Dec 17/19). They are likely to split the small percent of uncommitted votes, thereby preventing any from gaining a seat or more in parliament to hold the balance of power.
We know that in 2011, the PPP was forced to prorogue parliament and hold elections because of a one-seat deficit in parliament. Then in Dec/18, a one seat vote from the government bench in support of the PPP's No Confidence Motion led to the fall of the APNU-AFC government. In 2015, the four small parties in the elections were unable to gain together a total of 2500 votes. The URP, one of the four, received 418 votes. In 2020, if each of the 14 new parties receives 418 votes, none will obtain a seat and one seat will go to either of the two major parties.
Should 2020 follow the trend of the previous two elections, the small parties would not achieve what Mr Ramkarran is hoping for.
Mr Ramkarran continues, “At these elections, the seriousness of the issues raised by small parties, and their commonality, are a distinct feature and distinguish them from most of those of the past”. If there is such commonality, why can't these small parties unite to ensure a degree of success?
To me, the leadership of these parties suffer from the same malady as the leadership of the two major parties. As the 1985 Tears for Fears song says, “Everybody wants to rule the world”, the seduction of power, especially with the flow of oil wealth, seems too great to allow for compromise.
Harry Hergash, Toronto
|