Dear Editor,
Every statement made by a head of government is analysed very carefully not only for what it means but what it could be taken to mean. It is why, from across the sea, I share some thoughts on a statement made by President Granger vis-à-vis the Carvil Duncan saga, in which I had more than a mere tangential role.
As reported by GINA, President Granger said, “there is a slight difference between insufficient evidence and innocence therefore, insufficient evidence (is) not equal to innocence, but I will await the findings of the Commission of the Tribunal that I had set up, and be guided by that tribunal.”
One does not have to be a lawyer to comprehend the fundamental rights enshrined in our constitution, one of which is the presumption of innocence. In fact, the objective in its formulation was that it should not be esoteric, so that the layman could understand its meaning. It means that all persons charged with an offence in Guyana are innocent until it is determined by a court that they are guilty. President Granger’s statement raises deeply disturbing questions.
First, it immediately questions the legitimacy of the constitutional protections which are deemed in law as fundamental rights intended to act as a check on abuse by a powerful state. This, along with other actions like the hosting of cabinet meetings at the army base, the preferential employment of military officers and retired military personnel in key civilian positions without opening opportunities to the public sends worrying signals.
Second, questions are immediately raised as to whether Mr Granger as executive president is unwavering in his defence of those fundamental rights which form the foundational pillars upon which the laws of Guyana are built and our society is governed, or whether he merely severs particular articles of the constitution he finds useful and disregards others, for instance, disregarding one of the clauses in the agreement with the AFC for the prime minister to chair cabinet meetings on the ground that it violates the constitution.
Third, questions are also raised about President Granger’s acceptance of the rule of law and principle of the separation of powers, both of which are critical elements in good governance and a democratic state. After the dismissal of the charges against Mr Duncan by a magistrate, Mr Granger’s statement suggests a refusal to accept those findings.
Fourth, President Granger’s statement of insufficient evidence not meaning innocence, coupled with deferring to the finding of a commission which he reminds us was set up by none other than himself, raises questions not only about the impartiality of that commission but the perception of whether it can come to an impartial outcome.
Fifth, there is still one charge pending and his comments fall foul of the sub judice rule.
These questions require responses from President Granger not only in word but in deed. While the fact is not lost on anyone that journalists are denied access to openly question President Granger on any matters of national importance, the ones who participate in this charade of a media engagement have a professional responsibility to seek clear answers.
Yours faithfully,
Charles S Ramson
Attorney-at-law
