Dear Editor,
I wish to apologize to Stabroek News readers with respect to my letter titled ‘The extreme powers of the presidency show how atrocious the constitution is’ (SN, December 25). Lincoln Lewis is correct that I quoted the wrong version of the constitution (pre-2000 version). Where he is wrong is in his assertion that I committed a deliberate act of misrepresentation. It was an honest mistake and for that I apologize to readers. That said, while Mr Lewis hastened to point out my error, he again fails to address the imbalanced powers within the constitution, even from
the correct clauses he identified. In a twist of fate, my error in highlighting pre-2000 constitutional articles emphasizes how draconian this document was before the minor adjustments in 2000, reinforcing my point as to its core illegality.
Because Mr Lewis fails to accept the simple concept of de jure versus de facto constitutionality, he cannot understand how a constitution could lack inherent legitimacy, yet when an individual is forced to live under that constitution, that individual is allowed to expediently use that
constitution to pursue his rights for the simple sake of survival. This explains my letters on various issues demanding strategic and expedient application of the constitution where it benefits the public. That is a fundamental concept in constitutionality that Mr Lewis fundamentally avoids.
To this end, I ask Mr Lewis to inform readers whether the colonial constitution was a legitimate (de jure) document? I ask Mr Lewis whether South Africans going to court and constitutionally demanding relaxation of pass laws that restricted their right of movement within their own country was acceptance of the legality of apartheid laws?
Mr Lewis does not address Article 46, which allows the President, minority or majority elected, to strip any Guyanese of their citizenship even in the face of dual citizenship recognition. He does not address the presence of an executive presidency yet no separate election of that presidency as is common to presidential democracies. There is nothing that creates more legitimacy in an executive presidency than separate election by the people.
Mr Lewis is ready to rip into my error but he offers no insights into the atrocities present in the correct version of the constitution he is in love with. His points out the correct Article 50 but is dramatically silent on the fact that this very same Article 50 creates three arms of the state
over which the President has supreme power in two (presidency and cabinet) and equal power in the other – legislative arm (Parliament). Article 127(2) still allows the presidency to appoint the Chancellor or Chief Justice if after delay or to appoint an acting appointment with all the powers, as has been done by the PPP. Article 70 still grants the presidency power to dissolve or prorogue a National Assembly his party has no control over!
Articles 103 and 104 allowing the president to appoint non-elected ministers who have a right to sit and speak, and defend the wrongs of the presidency, but not vote in the National Assembly is still in the post-2000 constitution. Mr Lewis fails to address this obvious travesty. Nor does he
have a voice on the presidential appointment of a prime minister of his choosing. Mr Lewis is silent on Article 99, which puts all executive power in the presidency and not an iota of executive power in cabinet as is normal in most presidential democracies. Article 161 in my letter is the same but Mr Lewis avoids commenting on the presidential domination of the Guyana Elections Commission. Lincoln Lewis got on his soapbox and rightfully highlighted my error in quoting the wrong version of the constitution but again, he dodges and evades the burning stake of excessive executive power that is stuck in the heart of this constitution. If I am running with the hare and hunting with the wolves then Mr Lewis is doing the very same thing in criticizing the President’s prorogation of Parliament. Given his utterances on the constitution, prorogation is legal, legitimate, valid and exercisable to Mr Lewis.
Yours faithfully,
M Maxwell
