Dear Editor,
Political recluse Mr Ralph Ramkarran hit the nail on the head in analyzing Chief Justice Ian Chang’s ruling on the budget. In fact his clarification why the ruling was sound and inviolable became clearer in his blog site conversationtreegy.com as published in SN of February 2. But Mr Eusi Kwayana, another political recluse, finds the decision objectionable, as usual in the SN of February 1. Who makes the better case? There is currently no constitutional crisis in Guyana because the checks and balances are operating normally. How the opposition resolves problems is a meter to how they will behave in government.
Relief is most permissible and possible for rectification by appealing to the Guyana Court of Appeal and subsequently the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Alternatively, the combined opposition can reject the entire budget ‒ they have that power ‒ move a no-confidence motion ‒ and it has the majority ‒ and bring the government down. The President is constitutionally required to dissolve parliament and call fresh elections.
Guyana will indeed remain a democratic country governed by law and order unless its constitution is violated by the gifted confused. The right to disagree in a democracy is as normal as best finding relief in court. Whatever is implied can only be dangerous intent, or not, should Mr Kwayana mean otherwise than the judiciary, that “It is the work of the political culture to keep them from intruding unlawfully on one another’s jurisdictions.” Legal responsibility for reversing itself permanently resides only within the judiciary empowered by the constitution itself and no one else.
All sovereignty which lies in the people can only be valid when it is in harmony, sanctified and expressed only through the same constitution and not outside the law.
That the Guyana constitution is the highest and supreme law of the land is without question. The judiciary alone is empowered by the Guyana constitution , to be its interpreter, enforcer, adjudicator and guardian. It does not become subsumed, changed, diluted, subjected or altered by any subsidiary law(s) unless by changing the constitution itself. After laws are created by parliament, the judiciary alone is the empowering adjudicator which interprets and ensures its implementation in court, imposing necessary penalties.
Existing rules or regulations in the National Assembly which regulate its operations are valid save and except only when they conflict, attempt to supersede, nullify, invalidate or compromise, etc, constitutional authority. All without exception are subjected to constitutional authority, including the executive and legislature. The judiciary itself is not immune from the law. A judge or magistrate will be charged for murder regardless. Disobeying the decisions of the judiciary is usually contempt of court and illegal, always subject to penalties. The Chief Justice, Mr Ian Chang has upheld and justified constitutional authority where it speaks for itself.
Disagreement with judicial ruling cannot nullify the source by which it was guided and validated.
Since there is uncertainty on how the National Assembly gridlock should be resolved, the court was the appropriate means to its resolution as found in the highest legal authority of the constitution. The Chief Justice delivered a brilliant legal ruling unprecedented in its scope, analysis and novelty. Mr Ramkarran zeroed on the finesse by which the court ruled. The opposition says it can amend the budget, no doubt because of its majority. The constitution says it can, but not by encroaching on the executive’s right to present the budget. Additionally the judiciary does clarify, not neuter how the legislature can protect their rights.
Mr Kwayana is unable to reconcile Guyana’s parliamentary history where the rules previously regulated only clear cases of white and black majority government, minority opposition with which he is no doubt familiar. Airborne on Guyana Antiquity Corporation (GAC), he now hijacks it to erroneously colour spray even today’s operative 1980 Guyana Constitution. “In Guyana it should be easy for a court to appreciate that the business of the National Assembly is governed by a special body of rules with the status of law called Standing Orders. Are not procedures of the courts governed by Rules of Court? And does not the High Court Act empower courts to determine their own procedure where the Rules of Court do not apply?” Where such an argument is completely untenable is when, like Mr Kwayana so often does, he expects his ideas and the National Assembly rules to supersede Guyana’s constitution. Unlike the past, the 1980 PNC constitution actually now permits and regulates the executive presidency to head a minority government as the new legal normal. Refreshing the painted lanes on the highway to ensure the integrity of government traffic necessary for avoidance of anarchy and chaos in no way affixes blameworthiness on the traffic department just because the opposition car driver wants to drive but is unprepared or compromised.
Is Mr Kwayana’s approach outdated? His legitimate concerns advocating respect and appreciation for the rights and rules of the National Assembly are valid. But the judiciary has only made them clearer as a guide to avoid future problems for everyone.
Yours faithfully,
Sultan Mohamed