If there is no agreement between government and the opposition to extend the deadline for the holding of general elections, the resulting uncertainties and instability would lead to a crisis, a Town Hall meeting heard last evening.
The sparsely attended meeting at the Theatre Guild, which was organised by RISE Guyana Inc., under the theme ‘Consequences of the no-confidence motion: Averting a constitutional crisis,’ saw a five-member panel field numerous questions from those in attendance.
The panelists were attorney and accountant Christopher Ram, Sean Dublin, of the Liberty and Justice Party, Juan Edghill and Gail Teixeira of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) and Timothy Jonas of A New and United Guyana (ANUG). No representatives of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), the Alliance for Change (AFC), the Federal United Party (FED-UP) and the Civil Society Forum were present even though invitations were extended to them.
The panelists based on the discussions seemingly agreed that on March 22nd the David Granger-led government becomes illegal and that citizens should consider non-violent protest action in the streets.
Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo has repeatedly said that the country is heading towards a constitutional crisis.
A University of Guyana student used the forum to ask how the expiry of the date for the holding of the polls is going to affect the ordinary persons and the routine functioning of government agencies, such as the Guyana Revenue Authority.
Jonas, in response, said that he would not say there will be a “crisis” but would rather use the term “uncertainty.” He said that when the 90-day period elapses and nothing has been done, we will be in a situation that is not catered for by the constitution and, therefore, “all the resulting uncertainties create a crisis because we don’t know if the lending agencies will continue to lend. We do know and it is my view that any decision by Cabinet from the time it was effectively resigned… I believe is unlawful and more than likely ineffective.”
After March 22nd, Ram said, that he was not sure what the impact will be.
Teixeira posited that there will be uncertainty and instability. “When a country has a president and government that has no constitutional cloak…then the country is unstable,” she said, before adding that this situation will lead to an economic impact on everyone, particularly “the ordinary and poor people of this country as of March 22nd.”
A concerned citizen asked who will call
elections and who will be responsible for dissolving Parliament after March 21st.
In response, Teixeira stressed that this is exactly why Guyana will be in a crisis. She said that the president is the only one who has the powers to name a date for elections and to proclaim such in the Official Gazette. “Nobody else in the country has that power,” she said, before adding that the leader of the government’s business in the House has to convene Parliament not the president.
“After March 21st, the government is unconstitutional and, therefore, there should be no sitting of Parliament. However and this is just hypothetical, that were the president to make a reasonable offer and were the opposition to agree, then under those circumstances there could be a mechanism found to be able to convene a special sitting of parliament for exclusively that purpose but it is all in the area of hypothesis and speculation because as of today, March 16th, there is no indication of a date for elections and even the whispers we pick up information from on the government side… are stone deaf. Nobody has information on the secret date when elections will be…,” she stressed.
Towards the end of the three-hour question and answer forum, political commentator Ramon Gaskin raised the question of the military intervening if there is not a normal functioning of the organs of the state, as is outlined in Article 197 A of the Constitution.
In response, Ram said that he did raise this issue before. “Somebody has got to protect our constitution. Had it been an external person, the army would surely have stepped in and by the same token the usurper is within the mechanism and my position, I [have] said publicly …that is a relevant and necessary condition at this stage,” he pointed out before questioning who should be this protector, if not the security forces.
In this regard, he turned his attention to Article 95 and said that “if the president becomes a usurper,” then he is not legal and therefore that section of the Constitution should kick in. In the present situation, he said the president, prime minister and the other members of the cabinet are illegal and therefore the Chancellor should fill the vacancy. “Somebody has got to take responsibility for our sake. We cannot sit down and let this happen…,” he added.
Subsequently, a member of the audience sought clarity on whether Granger remains the president after March 21st. Edghill, in response, answered in the negative, while explaining that he will become a “de facto” president as he will be squatting in office. Ram disagreed on this point, saying that the two have different meanings and that in the circumstances a “usurper” or “squatter” would be more ideal. Edghill in the end agreed.
Edghill pointed out that the government and president lost its mandate on December 21st, 2018, when a no-confidence motion against it was passed by a one-vote majority in the National Assembly. “They resigned and their last day on the job is March 21st, 2019 because resignation is with notice and an elections should have been held to determine the vacuum. The constitution never contemplated a president continuing in office without an election. The issue here is elections,” he said while stressing that it is the people of Guyana who must hire their next Chief Executive Officer. “The current Chief Executive Officer has been fired. His term comes to an end on March 21st, 2019. Do we want to have a situation where a CEO of a country has been fired and you have not allowed a process of having the new one [because] the old one says, ‘I am the boss. I am not moving?’” he asked.
Non-violent protests
Ram later called on citizens to take action now. “We have embarked on that dangerous descent… and we have to start doing something. The time is now. We only have five days. Let us not miss this opportunity, otherwise we may find it difficult. Let us not forget the 28 years we had to fight for free and fair elections,” he said to applause from members of the audience. He urged all to stand up and fight, “in the interest of our country and the interest of democracy.”
Dublin in adding to the discussion said that after March 21st all Guyanese should impose sanctions on the government. Likening government’s behaviour to that of a footballer who commits a violation during a game, he said that “if the government refuses to give a date, we must give them a yellow card after then it’s a red.”
Jonas, in expressing hope for a resolution before next Thursday, pointed out that 90 days have not yet expired. “We’ve seen intervention by the international community and that gives us hope. We are having these discussions hopefully to educate the wider public…,” he said, before stressing that his party will not support unruly, unlawful and loud protest. “We will do everything that we can to take all lawful measures to make the point that we are making and to see what can be done to bring about the early elections and that will include picketing if necessary… exercising our freedom of speech but we will not break the law,” he said, when asked if his party will support street protests.
Dublin, in this regard, said that while he supports such, he does not believe it is necessary at this point. “We at the stage where we ending the three months. Then we go to the two-thirds to parliament to agree to extend and if that does not happen, then there is a yellow card, then there is the red card coming,” he said.
The politician stressed that his party agrees that the no-confidence motion was carried and that the ruling of the Chief Justice must be upheld. GECOM, he stressed, must therefore operate as though the motion was passed. “The list that we have GECOM must use it because there is a no-confidence motion,” he said to applause.
On the question of the voters’ list, Ram pointed out that there is an existing list and there is a mechanism of claims and objections that can be applied. He said that he is sure if an additional one month after April 30th was needed, GECOM could have gotten that go ahead.
Teixeira later explained that when a list expires, there can be a claims and objections period and a continuous registration. “There is nothing in law about house-to-house registration,” she stressed, before adding that there was an agreement after the 2008 house-to-house registration, “we would have continuous registration every six months to update the ‘mother of all lists,’ that was what the 2008 list was called.”
She added that this is what has been taking place and therefore in a normal situation after April 30th, automatically there would be continuous registration followed by claims and objections. She said that the names of deceased persons cannot be removed from the list unless a death certificate is produced and therein lies the problem as many persons in far flung areas are buried a day after their death and may not have a death certificate issued. She said a Guyanese also cannot be removed from the list just because they are living overseas
During the discussions, the issue of dual citizenship came up.
Teixeira reiterated that she will renounce her Canadian citizenship before adding that the PPP/C has already agreed that if a sitting of the National Assembly is to be called for a vote to extend the 90 day timeline, then those opposition members who hold dual citizenship will have to resign.
Speaking for herself, she indicated that her resignation letter is a hand’s reach. “If a sitting is convened I will submit my letter to the head of my list and to the Speaker to advise him,” she said, before adding that her party will then replace her with someone else from the list. She also said she assumes that those dual citizens on the government side of the house would not enter parliament in breach of the constitution.
