Dear Editor,
One would have thought that by now there would be a series from the experts enlightening the Guyanese populace about the constitution in general and the provisions that allow for prorogation in particular. Instead, what we have is two versions of history being represented.
There are two views on the origin of the provision for a no-confidence motion. An open letter says: “Moreover, in 2000 the no-confidence procedure was inserted as one of a series of constitutional reforms.” In KN, Mr Basil Williams is reported as saying that “Guyanese have since lived to see Presidents Cheddi Jagan, Samuel Hinds, Bharrat Jagdeo and now Donald Ramotar ‘hugging and embracing the same Constitution.’” On Capitol News, a member of the Burnham family claimed as much. We expect lawyers to argue about the implications of a given section of law, but we do not expect them to repeat what would be, in effect, fiction and one version would have to be fiction.
A few months ago, there was a query about the interpretation of the clause which gave the presidency to the party which won the largest block of votes. The question was regarding whether this was to be interpreted to mean the presidency and government without the need to form an alliance. There has only been silence since. I have concluded that no one is too sure.
Editor, I am calling on the print media to start a series on the current constitution with special reference to the electoral system and the formation and operation of government. It should quote the clause and then clearly, in simple English, say what the implications of the clause are. It should also state what the current thinking about the provision is (if there is any thinking at all); whether it is a strong provision; or whether it needs redrafting. The redrafting should show what the purpose of the amendment is.
The only thing I found apart from the constitution itself is a document prepared by the Guyana Association of Women Lawyers, which was pretty informative but did not provide answers to the above issue.
The current impasse should be used to educate the population about their constitution.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick W A Collins
