“The court acting as guardian of the Constitution cannot be accused of seeking to fetter the work of the Assembly since it must be recognised that what fetters the Assembly is not the court but the Constitution itself or the law itself as interpreted by the courts. It is not the court which fetters but the Constitution or the law as interpreted by the Court.”
When we try to justify positions which run counter to a progressive historical trajectory, it rarely makes sense and frequently leads to the confusion of thought exhibited above. What is the crux of any court if not its interpretation? For Chief Justice Ian Chang to tell us that what fetters the Assembly is not the court but its interpretation is therefore truly historic.
The court is not some kind of divine heavenly intervention that periodically showers us with undisputable truths; it is not an objective reality outside of the judge(s) that constitute it and provide us with interpretations. In the matter of the Constitution of the Republic of Guyana between the