Dear Editor,
Guyana’s fundamental problems, revealed in the almost daily disregard for law and order, can be attributed to the fact that the country is functioning with an illegal constitutional framework. Dr Bertrand Ramcharan has stated that “the Constitution of Guyana (1980) is a nullity… and the Independence Constitution… remains valid and should be reinstituted.” These words are contained in Dr Ramcharan’s book, The Guyana Court of Appeal: The Challenges of the Rule of Law in a Developing Country.
The Independence Constitution (1966) provided for the use of a referendum to amend certain key aspects of the Guyana Constitution. In particular, it is Article 73 of the Independence Constitution that contains this provision. In my view, a referendum is a vital tool for the democratic process since it manifests itself with the participation of the citizens of a nation. The referendum awakens the political spirit of a people to determine the framework for the rule of law within which they must function. This sacred realm of participation was violated in a crude and blatant move by Forbes Burnham with the active support of his cronies both in and out of the legal sphere in 1978. Expected opposition to this move by Mr Burnham and company came from Dr Cheddi Jagan’s People’s Progressive Party and the numerous opposition parties, unions, and agencies of the time. The end result was a fraudulent referendum that supported the removal of the need to conduct any further referendum whenever it was so deemed that an “entrenched provision” of the Constitution was required.
Fast forward to 1992 and beyond. Dr Jagan, after being so vehemently opposed to the changes that brought about the 1980 Constitution, never sought to reinstate the Independence Constitution. One can only assume that the ‘Julie mango’ type provisions of the 1980 constitution were too enticing to resist. Perhaps the most irresistible of the provisions of the 1980 constitution resides in the provisions that afford tremendous powers in an executive president that is unlikely to be found in the constitution of well-functioning modern democracies. While I am not convinced that Dr Jagan was an abuser of the powers of the office he attained in 1992 I absolutely cannot say that for his successors.
There is no need for me to write about the many ills that have been brought to bear upon the citizens of Guyana as a result of the Office of the Executive President as provided for in our constitution. I believe that a horrible shame has overcome us. We are no longer able to proudly declare that we are “One People, One Nation, One Destiny”!
My deepest desire in writing this letter is the awakening of a semblance of patriotism within a few learned legal luminaries to effect a court proceeding to bring about the reinstatement of the Independence Constitution. At the very least, I wish to see the return of the referendum as an instrument of democratic participation in our governance.
Yours faithfully,
Jeremy Gravesande
