Dear Editor,
Mr. Ronald Bulkan graciously seeks to educate me even as he himself seems to lack the appreciation or the understanding that two or more persons can have the same interpretation of the plain meaning and implications of the Constitution’s provisions on a No Confidence vote without being part of an “organised group”. Among the persons suspected by Mr. Bulkan of being part of that group promoting the argument that general elections must be held by March 21, 2019 are “the Private Sector Commission, AmCham Guyana and even external ones.”
Mr. Bulkan must be very dismayed that the group promoting what Mr. Bulkan still considers an argument now includes the labour movement in Guyana, almost every independent thinker in Guyana, the European Union, the United Nations and I dare say most respectfully, the Hon. Chief Justice of Guyana. Perhaps Mr. Bulkan needs to be reminded – if not educated – of the stipulation of Article 106 (7) of the Constitution which provides as follows:
“(7) Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine, and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the election.”
Since the entirety of the Cabinet and Government of which Mr. Bulkan is a part could be so gullibly misled into believing that a majority of 65 is a minimum of 34, it is easy to understand their difficulty in calculating ninety days from December 21, the date of the No Confidence vote. But since I am in no position to educate Mr. Bulkan, a product of the venerated Queen’s College, may I suggest that he go to timeanddate.com and take the following steps: insert 21 December 2018 under Start Date, type 90 in the Date Block under Add/Subtract and then press “Calculate New Date”. The date Thursday, 21 March 2019 pops right up. It is that easy Mr. Bulkan.
To check the accuracy of that date, he can add or add-up the 10 days in December following the date of the vote, 31 in January, 28 in February which gives a total of 69 days to the end of February and by deducting this from 90 days, he will see that it goes to March 21!
Editor, I suspect that deep down Mr. Bulkan knows all of this and that his real and more dangerous problem is that the APNU+AFC Government is desperate to avoid the Constitutional imperative for unplanned elections and more broadly, it rejects democracy if it threatens to remove them from Government. Mr. Bulkan gives grounds for this suspicion when he argues for the exhaustion of the remaining “two tiers of legal appeal in quest for clarity on confidence motion” as the letter was entitled.
Mr. Bulkan and his APNU+AFC colleagues may indeed have a numeracy deficiency but literacy too? If they cannot count, and cannot apply basic comprehension, what is their selling point to the electorate which they will have to face sooner rather than later and which will judge them partly on their defiant response to the No Confidence motion?
The arguments which Mr. Bulkan seeks to have re-litigated were advanced by several Senior Counsel and a battery of other lawyers and were clinically and comprehensively rejected by the Chief Justice. These gentlemen must be aware that all the Court did was interpret, some would say explain, Article 106 (6) and (7). Will the creative genius of the Government seek though these same lawyers to advance the same arguments to the remaining “two tiers of legal appeal”? And does Mr. Bulkan not know that whether or not it was Einstein who said it, the word for doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result is insanity?
In its determination to cling to power at any cost, the Granger Administration seems willing to abuse the legal process, hoping no doubt that the appellate courts will not impose costs because this is public interest litigation. It takes barely a scratch to remove the veneer of propriety to see that any appeal will have to be based on a new jurisprudence called political interest litigation which the Court should reject, imposing costs to show its displeasure.
The litmus test is whether as it pursues Bulkan’s “two tiers of legal appeal” the APNU+AFC would continue their case if the elections, which the Court has refused to delay, cause them to lose office. Meanwhile, I suggest that Mr. Bulkan consider that possibility, and educate and prepare himself for the attendant physical and psychological pain and suffering of losing the elections.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram