Although varied opinions have been expressed with regard to the allocation of radio and cable licences by the former President Bharrat Jagdeo, I nevertheless feel compelled to posit the following.
According to the principle of fairness and in accordance with universally held democratic tradition, no president, former or incumbent, has the inherent right to apply his/her executive power so to offend the popular will. Apart from the debatable constitutionality of the action of President Jagdeo in the distribution of those radio and cable frequencies just before he demitted office, his action can reasonably be construed as demonstrably arbitrary, vindictive, and, not least, an affront to common decency.
During my student days at London University, I recall an eminent law professor saying that a true democracy only operates with and by the consent of the people. And when this consent is withheld, whether directly or indirectly, then executive action could be overturned by either judicial review, or by popular civil disobedience. Of course, I am not advocating civil disorder by a dissatisfied public, but it could be argued that given the feeling of the majority of the Guyanese people the granting of these licences should and ought to be declared null and void by virtue of abuse of power.
It is heartening, therefore, to learn that Mr Enrico Woolford, the National Media & Publishing Company, and The Guyana Media Proprietors Association are seeking to have those licenc es rescinded.
Editor, unless Parliament addresses the far-ranging powers of the President of Guyana under Article 182 (1) (2) and (3) and the carte blanche immunities they afford, then a denouement of this issue is of paramount importance especially in light of the view of Attorney General Anil Nandlall, “Not even the Executive President of the country enjoys immunity from the legal process.” (Kaieteur News May 3).
Yours faithfully,
Albert Khan
