Dear Editor,
Mr. Bryn Pollard in his letter in yesterday’s Stabroek News (`Mr. Ramkarran’s positions twenty years apart do not appear to be entirely consistent’) accused me of inconsistency. Well, I am in the good company of those who see no problem with inconsistency. Accused of inconsistency, Mahatma Gandhi responded: “My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statements on a given question, but to be consistent with truth as it may present itself to me at a given moment.” I am sure that many statements I may make today are inconsistent with what I said twenty years ago or even five years ago. All that proves is that I am a normal human being whose views change with time and can change from day to day as I interact with the world about me.
As to the matter referred to by Mr. Pollard, I have no recollection that Justice Claudette Singh in the Esther Perreira case asked me and/or the other lawyers in 2001 whether she had the power to order the Government to demit office, as alleged by Mr. Pollard. But the events clearly demonstrate that the Judge could not have done so.
If Justice Claudette Singh had ever contemplated such a question, she would also have had to figure out who or what would take the place of the Government. Since there was no sensible or rational answer to that conundrum, it is unlikely that such an idea was entertained by the Judge or such a question was ever asked.
Additionally, and without any question asked, or submission made, the Judge ruled that since elections were due in three months, pursuant to the Herdmanston Accord, there was no need for an order that elections be held. This suggests that the Judge had contemplated ordering that elections be held, rather than ordering that the Government demit office.
Mr. Pollard misrepresents my argument in the current situation. I have never said that the Government should demit office. The same problem as in 2001 would arise. Who or what would take its place? The clear answer to the current crisis is that the Government should respect the Constitution, speak to the Opposition, agree to a date for elections, and extend the life of the National Assembly with the support of the Opposition. I have said repeatedly that the Government’s lawful status comes to an end on March 22.
Instead of an excursion into events twenty years ago to speculate about what I said, and whether or not I am contradicting myself – attacking the messenger and not the message – Mr. Pollard could have used his considerable weight to support respect for the Constitution and a negotiated solution to the current crisis.
Yours faithfully,
Ralph Ramkarran
