Dear Editor,
Yes. Yet another letter from me. I now seem to be rivaling one GHK LoL, sorry, GHK Lall. But I believe that the fact that you have published these frequent letters from me in recent weeks and those of GHK Lall et al suggest that we are making a meaningful contribution to the debate on current issues affecting our dear country. I strongly believe that in any democratic and decent society all ideas must contend and that the media has a critical role to play in this connection. So let me put on record my sincere kudos to your newspaper for providing me and others the opportunity to share what I hope, at least in my case, are constructive ideas which are open to criticism and opposition.
That having been said I am ineluctably constrained to share a recent telephone conversation which I did not initiate. Yesterday, I received a telephone call on my US mobile. It was from a member of the United States Congress with whom I have interacted over the years in my capacity as chair of the private sector council of the Institute of Caribbean Studies (ICS) and as a member, on three occasions co-chair, of the planning committee of Caribbean Legislative Week which is held on Capitol Hill during Caribbean Heritage Month each June.
The Member of Congress contacted me for what was described as “an independent assessment” of the current political situation in Guyana. The word situation was used and not crisis as well as the word Administration rather than regime when reference was made to the current government. This was most heartening and encouraged me to engage in the discussion notwithstanding that where I am currently I may be incurring roaming fees at a cost of $2.99 (US) per minute. In a nutshell this is what I had to say:
1. There is no requirement following the passage of the No Confidence Motion (NCM) and the ruling upholding its validity by the Chief Justice that the Government resigns. The requirement is that the Cabinet and the President resign; but that the Government remains in office until elections, which becomes due 90 days following the passage of the NCM on December 21, 2018.
2. There is no requirement under the Constitution that there be any public announcement that the President and Cabinet have resigned or any process which must constitute resignation. In fact, it is being interpreted in some quarters that this is automatic following the passage of the NCM. If my memory serves me right this formed part of the CJ’s ruling.
3. The statement by the Government that the status quo remains is unfortunate although in fact the status quo remains in that there are no provisions in the Constitution that the work of the Government is restricted. The statement is not helpful to the maintenance of a tension free society.
4. The meeting in January between teams headed by President Granger and Opposition Leader Jagdeo was quite encouraging and reflected the maturity of the political leaders and the society as a whole. The confidence that this meeting generated among the population has been eroded equally by the government statement about the status quo remaining and Mr. Jagdeo’s statement that the meeting was a public relations gimmick, having earlier pronounced that the meeting was useful.
5. The issue now is with the holding of elections which are due no later than March 20, 2019 barring Opposition agreement in Parliament for a mutually agreed period of an extension, or a Court order granting a stay of the Chief Justice’s ruling.
6. The government has indicated that it will appeal the CJ’s ruling and this is expected to happen later this week. The government enjoys the right to challenge the NCM in Court. I hope the Appeal Court will deal with this within a week or so. If the Appeal Court refuses to grant a stay of the CJ’s ruling and/or upholds the ruling then I expect the government to take its case to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Here is where some uncertainty arises as to how soon could the CCJ address and rule on this matter.
7. In the meantime there are allegations that the Elections Commission (GECOM) is deliberately stalling so as to avoid a March election. While this may not be true, it is not unfair to draw that conclusion based on perception. GECOM just yesterday provided some options for the holding of an early election none of which meets the March deadline. July has been identified as the earliest timeframe based on the Commission’s readiness, or lack thereof.
8. It is the date for the holding of elections which is occupying the attention and promoting opposing viewpoints on this matter, one which frankly can be of gross embarrassment to Guyana and its people. The last thing I would want to have happen is the international community deem a Guyana Government illegal and take actions based on such a classification.
9. It is my hope that Messrs. Granger and Jagdeo can continue the dialogue begun in January and agree on a workable timeframe for a well planned and executed election. The government should not seek to deliberately delay the election nor should the Opposition push too hard for an election date that is unreasonable. This is in the hands of Mr. Jagdeo since it is only with Opposition support can the date be constitutionally extended beyond March 20, barring a Court decision to stay the CJ’s ruling.
10. While I applaud the interest of the US and other major powers in the current situation I hope any analysis they undertake is fact based and there is no rush to judgement. Perhaps, in the event Guyana’s political leaders fail to demonstrate the maturity which I know they possess, then the international community can play a mediating role in the process.
Editor I share the points I made in my telephone conversation since indeed I think mine is an independent assessment which is fact based and at the same time within reason. My sincere hope is that this situation does not become a crisis. Let us all demonstrate the maturity and reasonableness which are required at this critical juncture of our dear land’s existence.
Yours faithfully,
Wesley Kirton
