Dear Editor,
I read your news report of the former First Lady’s recent news conference in addition to receiving an e-mailed copy of her statement which is currently being widely circulated via the Internet.
It is unfortunate that the marital troubles of the country’s former First Couple have had to become public knowledge.
I know from personal experience that the process of divorce is painful and nerve-wracking, especially when children are involved. Thank God that in the case of the First Couple no kids are involved.
However, given the nature and responsibilities of the high office of President, it must be particularly difficult for both parties to logically deal with the issue of divorce. Hence I understand and appreciate the former First Lady’s frustrations and her decision to go public.
As much as this issue is one for the two parties to resolve, the First Lady’s public statement, in my view, is a cry for help − not monetary help but emotional support. After all, she dedicated her time over the years to promote a worthy cause. Additionally, hers was a ceremonial position, which whether or not addressed by or in the Constitution of Guyana, put on her certain responsibilities and obligations, which she seemed to have lived up to over the period. Therefore, her cry for support must be addressed regardless who is at fault for the breakdown of the marriage.
Now that this issue has become public, and notwithstanding the fact that this is a personal matter for the two parties, the public image of the President has been negatively impacted, and if he is human, and I think he is, then he too must be emotionally affected by this whole scenario.
No one must exploit this very fragile situation for political purposes. However, Parliament should immediately take bipartisan action to allocate some funding to provide expert counselling services for both parties, if they so desire. Parliament should also vote to have the Attorney General appoint a special, independent judge (not an existing member of the judiciary) to deal with the marital settlement of this divorce. This appointment should allay the fears the former First Lady has about the fairness of the process.
Even further, Parliament must address with haste the issue of the role and functions of the First Spouse, bearing in mind the country once had a female president and can have others in the future, the obligations of the state including remuneration to that person, specific guidelines about the charitable work of the individual, and of course the status of that individual, and any minor children, if he or she were to be divorced from the President while in office.
It would take some time to discuss, draft and enact legislation to deal with much of what I have suggested. Therefore, there should be an emergency bill which at least would get Parliament’s approval to grant the former First Lady a small stipend until such time her marital settlement is adjudged and paid to her. Neither she nor any other First Lady of the nation should be relegated to ‘hand to mouth.’
It has already been difficult to attract to politics in Guyana the best and brightest in the society, and our young people will certainly shy away from public service if this is the kind of treatment meted out to those who devote themselves to careers in public service.
I noted the former First Lady’s reference to use of the Chancery in London by various Guyanese organizations. While it has been the practice over the years to permit such activities, the process should be fair and transparent. There should be clear guidelines and criteria for allowing organizations to use the premises of Guyana’s diplomatic missions abroad.
When I served in the Guyana Consulate/Permanent Mission to the UN in New York there were accusations of favouritism. We resolved this by setting up guidelines which allowed each officially registered Guyanese organization the use of the conference room one time each calendar year. As for having keys to the building − a categoric ‘No.’
As for the First Lady’s concern about not having applications for her business undertakings being favour-ably considered, President Jagdeo should issue a public statement indicating that requests from his former wife, outside of any special provisions which she may enjoy now or in the future, should be treated like that of any other citizen, assessed on their merits without any fear on the part of those considering the applications, of any action against them by him.
I have had some interaction with both parties over the years on a professional level. While I don’t support all of the policies of his government, in fact I oppose many, I have found both the President and his former wife to be reasonable human beings. I sincerely hope they could get over this hurdle amicably.
Yours faithfully,
Wesley Kirton
