Dear Editor,
Today marks eighty-seven days since the PPP/C tabled its No Confidence Motion and fifty days since it was passed, the Government defeated, Cabinet including the President ceased to exist, and the imposition of a ninety days deadline for the Government to hold fresh elections, unless extended by a two-thirds vote of the National Assembly. All of this was confirmed by the Chief Justice more than one week ago.
The GECOM Administration and its Executive comprising the Chief Election Officer and his team are fully aware of all of this and it is only appropriate for them to explain to Guyanese their action or justify their inaction since then in relation to their duties and functions regarding elections as set out under Article 62 and 162. It certainly cannot be for want of money: their budgetary allocation for 2019 is a whopping $5,371 million. At least publicly, GECOM has shown a troubling inertia in discharging its constitutional mandate with the cancellation by the Chairman of two meetings which he was scheduled to have with the Private Sector Commission being a good example.
But this in no way takes President Granger and the APNU+AFC off the hook. Article 106 (7), the text of which we must all by now be aware, imposes on the Government the primary duty to hold elections within ninety days from the passage of the No Confidence Motion. This sets March 21 as the outside date by which those elections must be held. At its most benign, President Granger and his Ministers seem unaware of the implications of what seems to be attempts at humour, disdain and rejection of reality.
Meanwhile, Ministers who never thought the people important enough to be given an audience are now going out into the communities, cajoling and being photographed with them while state resources are given out to party supporters in a grand display of misfeasance in public office of which I had accused the PPP/C in their time. That Guyana deserves better may be a cliché and an understatement, but yet no less true.
What then is the near term outlook, if the National Assembly does not extend the ninety days? I start with the assumption that President Granger and his Government have no intention of honouring the Constitution which they swore to uphold. I hold this view because of his refusal to revoke the appointment of Ministers Carl Greenidge, Joseph Harmon, Rupert Roopnaraine and Dominic Gaskin all admitted violators of Article 155 who are therefore ineligible for appointment as Vice-President or Ministers. Mr. Greenidge’s is particularly troubling since he continues to lead Guyana’s engagement in some major international initiatives, some with security implications.
This extends to their places in the National Assembly in which they cannot continue to sit but which makes it hard to contemplate any sitting of the National Assembly to extend the election date while the President and they continue to defy the Constitution. Their departure will leave people like Bulkan and Ramjattan as leading front-benchers on the Government side while Gail Teixeira, and possibly Lumumba and Anamayah of the PPP/C will also have to go. For Granger to remove the violators would require a demonstration of strong leadership which has so far been missing, thus making unlikely an early parliamentary vote to extend the National Assembly beyond March 21.
So let us get back to the question posed in the first sentence of the preceding paragraph. President Granger and some of his Ministers do not seem to recognise that the Constitution with all its warts does in fact provide – albeit inadequately – for the eventuality where the Government and the President fail to comply with Article 106 (7). He and his Ministers will then push Guyana into its worst constitutional crisis in its history, since even the suspension of the 1953 constitution was made legal by an Order in Council. President Granger seems to have argued that the country cannot be without a President since there must be a head of state and Commander of the armed forces. I submit that if the President thinks he can be the beneficiary of his Government’s own obstinacy and the illegality, he is deluding himself.
His Attorney General needs to advise him of Article 95 Vacancy in the Office of the President and Article 197A Defence and security. The first, which provides the order of precedence when there is no President lists the next in line as the Prime Minister, followed by an elected member of the National Assembly elected by the Cabinet and then followed by the Chancellor. Since there is no President, Prime Minister or any Cabinet to elect any person, the poisoned chalice falls on the Chancellor. The functions of Chancellor are then passed to another Judge as per Article 127 (2).
If Mr. Granger, then without the title or honorific President, still wants to play obstinate, Article 197A will be triggered. That Article makes the defence and security arm of the State the guarantor of the normal functioning of institutions of which the Presidency is of course the highest. Some may argue that the use of the words “defence and security policy” in Article 197A are not as clear and unambiguous as they ought to be, but some clarity is offered in paragraph 9.18.2.1 of the Annotated Handbook of the Constitution Reform Commission. The oath Officers take is to “honour, uphold and preserve the Constitution” and accordingly, they will have a duty to secure the presidency which under Article 95 devolves on the Chancellor.
The popular view is that Mr. Granger is a decent man and he will then have to ask himself whether he is willing to have the Army, for the first time in this country, play a role in its government. Such a situation is too frightening to contemplate and it has to be hoped that even the most battered, bruised and disappointed politicians would want to prevent such an eventuality.
The practical implications are also serious. The “government” as contemplated under Article 106 (7) will cease to exist and the persons forming the Government will be stripped of their authority, become interlopers and not only not be able to carry out any function, but cannot occupy their office, give any direction, carry out any contract or receive any payment in the form of salaries and other compensation. In any case, it would be foolhardy for any person whether local or foreign, banker or creditor, supplier or contractor to do business with it. CARICOM and the regional governments, Embassies, High Commissions, foreign Governments and international financial institutions who may want to continue to do business with Granger and his Ministers will then become complicit in the illegality.
Extreme as it is, the Constitution has to and does seek to prevent anarchy and it was the only way that the framers could devise.
This is the choice facing Mr. Granger. He needs to engage Mr. Jagdeo who must also act reasonably and in fairness to him his conduct to date has not indicated otherwise. I never ever contemplated writing a letter of this nature and wish I did not have to.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram
