Dear Editor,
Permit me the grace of your indulgence to express a view on this vexed issue of C’de Rohee’s participation in the National Assembly or as it may be more appropriately described as the House of unlawful assembly, the actions therein having come full circle after the recent walk-out of Speaker Trotman under whose baleful influence the current imbroglio was charted. As the editorial in Stabroek News of Monday, February 25 asserts firmly, little, if any, legislative progress was made since November 2011. One wonders what would have happened had the electorate chosen this quondam presidential candidate to head the executive. One may fairly surmise that our beloved Guyana may have receded to a mediaeval fiefdom.
Whatever some people may say about C’de Rohee, as a Minister he has enjoyed the confidence of seven successive presidential administrations since the internationally acknowledged return of democracy in 1992. This may be unprecedented, if not unparalleled, in the history of a political democracy. More to the point, Speaker Trotman has finally condescended to recognize that C’de Rohee’s “unhindered” participation in the House ought to have been a non-issue from the very outset some seven months ago. It therefore logically follows, as the night follows the day, that the demand for Rohee’s resignation was but a fatuous figment of the collective opposition’s fanciful strategy and, in some way, inspired by one of the Speaker’s dubious suggestions, if not ruling. It is universally accepted that confession is good for the soul but the confessor must not expect to escape without penalty.
This country has had many speakers, two of whom at least were not lawyers but Speaker Trotman cannot claim a lack of legal training as a possible defence to this parliamentary faux-pas! Furthermore, as the public has been led to believe that he was in consultation with his legal advisers and extra-territorial parliamentary colleagues, far and wide, it may not be unkind to urge him to do one of two things, ie change his advisers or resign; or better still, resign as his only option; do what is honourable as the Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI has done. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander! However, I must confess that I cannot justify this option on the basis of a reliance on convention since this constitutional concept is underpinned by an evolutionary process concretised from established customs and practice. I do not recall any Speaker in living memory having the cojones to divest a duly appointed Minister in like manner. This was sheer Caesarism on his part and the Minister is entitled to demand his pound of flesh.
More fundamentally, let me disabuse my compatriots who may have been led to believe that a president is to be regarded as a “creature” of the constitution as so demeaningly posited by the Speaker. This Hoytean epithet gained recent currency as a graceful vituperation for his then unruly General Secretary whom he summarily dismissed. That term was never intended, given the subtle linguistic nuances of the English language, to so classify the holder of such an esteemed constitutional office and I would venture to suggest that had his interpretation been the appropriate expression/meaning, then the Speaker himself would equally be a “creature.“ Burnham – a creature? Jagan – a creature? God forbid!
Finally, Article 153 empowers the Supreme Court to grant such orders, relief, etc, where there is or likely to be a contravention of one of the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution, one of which is Rohee’s right to freedom of expression whatever the forum, and coupled with the right of every citizen to work as set out in another section of the constitution, perhaps the Speaker saw the light of the fast approaching train in his tunnel of darkness and pre-emptively sought refuge in his recent recantation. The Supreme Court as custodian of the constitution, does not appear to be circumscripted by any of the tenets or precepts inhering in the concept of the separation of powers, the utterances about enforceability to the contrary notwithstanding. The court, being supreme, is empowered to make orders sans frontières.
Let me hasten to add that the Speaker is no Caesar.
Yours faithfully,
Charles R Ramson
