Dear Editor,
There is much cause for alarm in the statement made last Thursday 28th February 2019 by Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo where he stated he will not attend the 6th March meeting, as requested by President David Granger, “unless an election date is on the agenda.” Mr. Jagdeo is reminded as Leader of the Opposition that it is an abrogation of his constitutional duty and responsibility to refuse to meet with Mr. Granger at this juncture when our country is facing challenges in overcoming the disruption of our parliament, legal and other constitutional conflicts.
Mr. Jagdeo is further reminded that the title of Leader of the Opposition is enshrined in the Guyana Constitution Article 110 in Chapter X titled “The Executive.” Identification within the Executive determines his involvement in the day-to-day responsibility of Guyana’s administration, even during a successful confidence motion, albeit one that is undergoing judicial challenge in keeping with laws enshrining each individual, group and government’s right to due process. Further, there is absolutely nothing preventing Mr. Jagdeo from responding and suggesting additional items be on the agenda. That is the least theatrical way.
Understandably at this juncture political power play comes into focus but none of these should be deliberately orchestrated to pull us further down or over the precipice. None should result in disrespecting each party’s right to due process as identified in our laws when it comes to understanding and arriving at a determination of which is the best way forward for Guyana. This nation is reminded that whereas the confidence motion was a political move it is not without legal questions that must take precedence over political instincts. Guyana faces a legal /constitutional challenge which requires a judicial decision not merely a political one that may manifest partisanship. It is and must be about the common good and right now the common good requires that our two national leaders meet to determine the way forward in an atmosphere of cooperation and respect for our country’s stability.
The current impasse is created because there are differing opinions on both sides as to when the election is to be held. Both sides have arguments convincing to their supporters as to why their position is the right one. In a civilised world such differences are settled in a court of law where each party has the right to appeal to the highest level of the judicial system if they so wish and if they can so afford to do. This process is not new; it is day to day occurrence at every level of our society. Why does it seem to be an incomprehensible problem at the highest level of governance? Why is it on this occasion some seem to desire and are even engineering a less than civilised approach to resolving this impasse? Why is it the preference to confine this legal dilemma to the lowest level of political discourse, a political circus?
Mr. Jagdeo may believe the coalition government is in violation of the laws by not resigning and doing as he claims. He has every right to his opinion but refusing to engage demonstrates a level of behaviour that is a threat to peaceful resolution. It demonstrates contempt and disregard for the Office of the President and Judicial arm of government, the latter which operates independent of the Executive and Legislative.
The nation is reminded that the challenge to the appointment of the GECOM Chairman, brought by the Opposition, is presently before the Caribbean Court of Justice, despite the appointment being made within the framework of the Article 161 (2) paragraph/clause two; inspite of the High Court and Appeal Court rulings not in the Opposition’s favour. While the Opposition’s position is perceived as politicking in some quarters, and whereas the present court challenge brought by the Executive is perceived as foot dragging in another quarter, one is not more entitled than the other. What is important is that they both comply with the judicial processes to resolve legal conflicts. There remains concern about the partial reading of Article 106(7) and the failure to read Article 106(6) in conjunction with 106(7). The cherry-picking of parts is causing confusion and misleading society even as no work is being done to put mechanisms in place to give meaning as to how a government ought to “function” based on the 31st January ruling by acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire SC. This alone is cause enough for Parliament to be convened. The nation needs guidelines based on legislation or written convention that would ensure common understanding on how we proceed. Our politicians are urged to look at societies where political maturity and the exhaustive processes of the various branches of government are considered key to ensuring stability and good governance.
This is not just a time for public political fits and outbursts. The recent conduct to kerfuffle the society and mislead the international community, goading persons into action on misleading statements, threats and appeals to fears embedded in their minds from years of conditioning must be condemned. The local diplomatic and international community is expected to not be fooled by tactics which border on recklessness, disregard for the Rule of Law and the role of the Judiciary in safeguarding same.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
