Dear Editor,
“In order to understand the legality or the constitutionality of the President’s proclamation, [to prorogue parliament] one has to understand the “constitution in its entirety” wrote Mr Raymond Gaskin in the SN of November 18 titled ‘The constitution says the government cannot remain in office if it does not enjoy the confidence of the House of Assembly.’ Further Mr Gaskin insists that, “There is really no dispute about the no confidence, and the vote of no confidence is merely the ‘paperwork’ to confirm the reality.” Paperwork is extremely important we all must agree.
In the movie Air Force One the US President’s plane was hijacked. The plane was designed with a special security pod for him to escape. It was found empty when it landed. Assumed to be dead the female Vice President was under pressure to take control of the US government. She was very reluctant to do so because of the unprecedented situation. The AG’s opinion was invoked. It became a classical legal opinion which bears on Guyana.
He said the constitution does indeed provide for the VP to succeed the President and assume legal control of the government. But he said this was only legally possible when a majority of the cabinet signed necessary paperwork declaring the President dead. With no President alive the VP was then legally empowered to be sworn in.
Yes or no to legal paperwork? The no-confidence motion was neither debated nor approved in Guyana. The PPP/C did not violate the constitution. But the opposition in contempt of court violated the judiciary’s decision that they had no legal authority to cut or alter the budget.
Is the PPP/C government dangerous because it has survived strong though weakened by the 2011 elections? If it turns out that it is not strong, then, is it even more dangerous due to its conformity with the legalities of Guyana’s constitution?
What is most bizarre is Mr Gaskin’s letter which advocates: “The Constitution of Guyana clearly and unambiguously demands the resignation of the cabinet including the President once they have lost the confidence of the majority of the elected members of the National Assembly.” Not even the constitution’s “paperwork” can give him any relief or rescue. With high hopes better judgement will prevail in this predicament.
Mr Gaskin wrote: “No one, not even the President denies that the cabinet has lost the confidence of the house.” But he provides no evidence which supports that President Ramotar made any such admission.
Press freedom and free speech still allows Guyanese to participate in politics. The Canadian Prime Minister with a minority government facing a no-confidence motion with full constitutional and legal authority prorogued the parliament. Surely Mr Gaskin admits that the Canadians were practising democracy. But somehow the PPP/C government comes under Mr Gaskin’s displeasure that national constitutional obligations were breached.
Yours faithfully,
Sultan Mohamed
