Dear Editor,
Some pronouncements tell the reader more about the institutions making them than the matters they are supposed to be addressing. One such pronouncement was issued by the 35th Caricom Comm-unity Council which met on January 16th and intituled, ‘An update on developments in relation to the prorogation of the Parliament of Guyana,’ it read:
“The Community Council received an update from the Foreign Minister of Guyana regarding developments in relation to the prorogation of the Parliament of Guyana. Ministers recalled that the Government of Guyana had formally advised the Caribbean Community regarding the prorogation and the reason for this course of action.
“In her update, the Foreign Minister advised of the imminent announcement of elections by the President of Guyana.
“Ministers were satisfied that the prorogation of Parliament was in keeping with the provisions of the Guyana Constitution and did not constitute a breach of the Commonwealth Charter…”
In November 2014 leaders of the Guyana opposition parties wrote to the Caricom heads and others drawing their attention to the unfolding governance crisis in Guyana caused by a series of abuses of executive power, the most recent of which was the prorogation in order to avoid a no-confidence vote.
They argued that along with the refusal of the government to hold local government elections in 20 years (and where the role of elected representatives was being usurped by officials appointed by the Minister of Local Government), the refusal of the President to assent to Bills properly passed by the Assembly (including Local Government Bills) on grounds that they did not meet with the approval of the PPP and his executive (an illegal and improper condition) and in contravention of Art 217 of the Constitution, spending monies from the Consoli-dated Fund although they had not been approved by the Assembly, have led to a crisis of governance with dangerous implications for law and order in this country. Proof of the danger posed by this behaviour is to be had from the government’s inability to secure a parliamentary majority to pass critical legislation such as the Anti-Money Laundering legislation and the so-called Environ-mental Tax illegally imposed against packaging imports from Caricom.
“A no-confidence vote which had been said by the Opposition aimed at bringing the Government down within three months at the outside has been frustrated by the prorogation of the Assembly.
The President’s subsequent actions have been aimed at extending the term of the Executive beyond January 11th 2014. In the interim, the PPP regime has engaged in an orgy of expenditure not approved by the Assembly, not permitted under the Constitution via any special arrangement for pro-rogation and including elections expenditure dressed up as long term investment projects. Many of these expenditures incur external debts and transfers from state revenues held outside of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny.”
The Caricom heads’ attention had been drawn to the matter, not to have them determine whether the government has acted illegally in relation to the October 10th Proclamation on Prorogation, but to have them take a political initiative to avoid a constitutional crisis marked by chaos and disorder associated with resort to extra-parliamentary remedies. In their responses Caricom never even bothered to consult with the opposition or lawyers versed in Guyana’s legal and constitutional system. Cariom Chairman Gaston A Browne, Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, issued a statement to the effect that the prorogation posed no problem in his view because the President had given his word that an election would be held soon. In addition, the 35th Community Council having allowed a surrogate for the GOG to introduce the matter under ‘Any Other Business’ concluded that the proclamation was not illegal.
Only a PPP Government would have the brass to put such a question to the regional integration organization and only a Caricom organ would be so presumptuous and indisciplined as to essay an answer. I say that for two reasons: first, the Community Council has neither the technical competence nor the mandate under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, to determine any domestic legal matter of this kind. Furthermore, the Council is not independent of the CHOG. These points seem to have been overlooked by the Council and the Secretariat.
We in Guyana had always assumed such interpretations to be the function of the Guyana courts and ultimately the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). At best the Caricom AGs might have been expected to pronounce, if asked for guidance, but of course they were not, since strict legality was not the issue.
Under Art 12 none of the eleven Functions and Powers of the Conference includes arbitrating on the legality of constitutional change and under Art 13 the Community Council “shall, in accordance with the policy directions established by the Conference, have primary responsibility for the development of Community strategic planning and co-ordination in the areas of economic integration, functional co-operation and external relations.
“Conference and Council shall be assisted by :
(a) the Council for Finance and Planning;
(b) the Council for Trade and Economic Development;
(c) the Council for Foreign and Community Relations, and
(d) the Council for Human and Social Development.”
Art 16 says that subject to the provisions of Article 12,
“COFCOR shall be responsible for determining relations between the Community and international organisations and Third States.”
“3. Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 2, COFCOR shall:
(a) promote the development of friendly and mutually beneficial relations among the Member States.”
On 11th Feb 2014 the heads urged that one reflection of the crisis, the matter of the money laundering Bill be speedily resolved, by enacting the relevant legislation, in the interest of the people of Guyana and the community. If the heads aired the view that these developments in Guyana were not only important to Guyana but could also have seriously adverse consequences for the region as a whole, how is it that a junior body is offering such a definitive opinion contradicting it?
Apparently the Community Council has no idea about the principle of subsidiarity. They had better take the trouble to learn it before they embarrass themselves further. It is a sad reflection on the workings of the bodies.
The Community Council wasted no time in deeming the UK and USA envoys’ call for local government elections, the lifting of the suspension of Parliament or the holding of early general elections, a lack of respect for Guyana’s sovereignty and its right to self-determination. I note however that they, like the Guyana ministers, chose to attack the local representatives of the sovereign states rather than the UK Minister Tobias Ellwood MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for example, who actually made the statement.
The irony of their pronouncement on a matter which the Guyana’s law and constitution deem the purview of the High Court and ultimately the CCJ only, seems to have missed them. They themselves are in fact not only interfering but proving themselves to be credulous tools of an unscrupulous and undemocratic government in a dispute involving far more than the legality of a proclamation. Ever since the questions of democracy and human rights came on to the UN agenda and Charter the idea has had currency that a government’s actions within its borders are not a matter for comment and pronouncements by foreigners.
Under Art 13 the Community Council is advised by four other Caricom organs, including the Coted. Ironically, the Council seemed less resolute and sure of themselves in the arena in which they have competence under the treaty, namely regional trade and discrimination against member states. Thus the Government of Guyana in 1995 imposed an illegal tax of $10 on each bottle of drink imported into Guyana. The Council has not been able to persuade the PPP Government either by replicating the boisterous attacks directed against the diplomats or by using the devices prescribed under the treaty, to stop, or to remedy the infraction. That situation has endured for nearly 20 years. It has been left to the CCJ to tell the PPP Government where to get off. It was fined US$6M. When Mr Nandlall suggested that the Guyana Government was not at fault and should be spared the fine because it was the fault of the opposition, the justices showed him the proverbial door in pointing out that the state is indivisible.
In other words, you should not be in office if you are unable to carry out the responsibilities of government and honour your undertakings. Indeed, all the Caribbean constitutions require a government unable to muster a majority of votes in the Assembly to resign. But the PPP is special! So, it appears, is Caricom.
Notwithstanding the decision of the court, the option of lifting the tax was never taken, nor was it put to the opposition. Instead the government proposed to further increase the tax burden on locals. The public and the Assembly were told that the imposition of this additional environmental levy was a Caricom requirement! Using the credulous Caricom governments to pursue its narrow political aims has then been a hallmark of this PPP Government.
The heads left it to the inexperienced and ductile Chairman to pronounce directly on the matter raised by the opposition leaders. Unlike the region, the OAS which has an entity advising it on the rule of law, human rights and matters of democratic practice, publically criticized the Government of Guyana and called on it to end the prorogation. As mentioned earlier, the heads had already explicitly admitted the seriousness of the situation in Guyana when they called on the Assembly to pass the AML legislation urgently. Therein lies the issue. The government apparently wanted the legislation passed as is. The opposition did not. Why would an honest broker urge that the legislation be passed?
At first blush, the fact that the Council could ignore the significance of the long denial of local government elections and a string of executive abuses of power and treat prorogation as a self-standing issue suggests either incompetence or naivety. But there is undoubtedly more to it. That approach to problems has had implications for the region’s capacity to contribute meaningfully to resolving crises in the region. One has only to look at the study of the events surrounding the two prominent cases of Nevis and Haiti which concluded that,
“It is partly also for these reasons as well [doubts about fairness and lack of thoroughness in the case of Nevis] that Caricom faced a crisis of confidence as it attempted to use its good offices to mediate a solution to the conflict in Haiti that eventually led to the ouster of President Bertrand Aristide in February 2004. Among other reasons for stymieing Caricom’s initiative, the opposition forces in Haiti did not regard Caricom as a neutral party in this dispute because since President Aristide represented Haiti in Caricom, he was perceived to be a member of the Caricom club.” (Grant and Kirton, 2007).
Caricom is the equivalent of a boy’s club or to be politically correct a club of and for governments. The body routinely comes to the aid of beleaguered governments because each of the other members says to itself, ‘There but for the grace of God go I.’ They are investing in anticipation of sympathy in the future in the event of like circumstances.
Yours faithfully,
Carl B Greenidge
