Dear Editor,
Yesterday was truly a sad day for anyone who believes in the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. President David Granger it seems has rejected the proposals by the Leader of the Opposition Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo for the naming of a date for elections and for consequential matters following from that. Incredibly, and without any regard for the Constitution which I repeat, he is sworn to preserve and uphold, Granger informed Jagdeo that he has to “engage GECOM on the issue and thereafter another meeting will be held.”
If Granger wishes to be taken as seriously intent on observing the constitutional mandate imposed on him by the Constitution, he should at least have had that conversation with his handpicked Chairman of the Elections Commission before meeting Jagdeo so that at the very least he would have been able to make a meaningful contribution to the meeting.
It is either that Granger, his Attorney General and his battery of lawyers are totally incapable of understanding the operation of the Constitution, or that he and they are bent on abrogating the Constitution for their own narrow political purpose. In any case, they are placing Guyana in the unique position where a sitting Government creates its own extra-constitutional event thereby displacing the constitutional order. Granger and the APNU+AFC are taking the country into a sinkhole from which the nature, method and timing of the recovery is completely unknown.
It is clear that Granger is acting on the assumption that incumbency, control of the levers of Government including the Treasury, assumptions about the judiciary and the loyalty and inaction of the security forces, give him the power to disregard the Constitution, the National Assembly and the ruling by the High Court. Whether his obstinacy and his contempt for the Constitution and the people of this country who did not vote for him – and even many of those who did, such as myself – is due to bad advice, or bad intentions, is not the issue at this stage. Granger is creating a crisis when there is none, an emergency with the inescapable consequence of undermining the constitutional rule, and we may not yet have realised this, depriving voters of that most sacred right.
The consequence of the Vote of No Confidence, and in order to avoid a state of unconstitutional government, is that the Government must hold elections and GECOM must conduct those elections within three months of the Vote, unless the period of three months is extended by the National Assembly.
This is not because of any ruling by the Speaker or indeed the Chief Justice. Plain and simple, this is because the Constitution so mandates. This has to be done even if the elections are later held to be invalid in an election petition, since a successful election petition allows the court to provide such reliefs as it considers appropriate. That is the function and duty of the Courts.
But it cannot be doubted that even the court is not free to dis-apply the mandatory provision of the Constitution for the holding of elections in three months. The court may overlook such a mandatory provision only if it positively finds in the substantive action that the no-confidence motion ought not to have succeeded and quashes the decision of the Speaker. But, otherwise, the court cannot usurp the power of the National Assembly and allow elections to be held outside of the constitutionally prescribed three months period.
And of course, only two thirds of the National Assembly can enlarge the three months period within which elections must be held. It is hard to understand how Granger expects ever to gain that support when he behaves in such an arrogant, uninformed and unconstitutional manner, even if he, then as a usurper, finds a way to convene the National Assembly once the three months period expires.
The no-confidence motion was birthed and treated with as part of the National Assembly process and the Constitution has conferred the National Assembly – and not the court – with the power and authority to enlarge the three months period for holding of elections. The court therefore cannot extend that period and that is the dangerous blind alley into which Granger is taking the country. Therefore, any application to stay the decision of the Chief Justice is more than legal sand-dancing around the Constitution: it is trampling on it.
The claim by GECOM that it is not able to conduct free and fair elections is therefore no basis for non-compliance with the constitutional mandate of holding elections within three months. It is thereby guilty of dereliction of its Constitutional duties to be prepared to hold elections within the prescribed three months set under Article 106 (7). If Granger nor the Courts can dis-apply the mandatory provisions of the Constitution, it seems difficult to understand how GECOM, another creature of the Constitution, can do so.
The elections must be held even if it is invalidated in a subsequent elections petition since that is accommodated in the Constitutional and legal process. The answer does not at all lie in the disapplication of the Constitutional by any authority, including the courts.
My fear is that Granger has taken his Government to one minute before midnight and dangerously, is taking the whole country with him.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram
