Dear Editor,
In a display of willful ignorance, David Granger and his Cabinet sat on the 23rd of January, 2020 and decided upon appointments for various state boards. While ignorance of laws is the new normal for Granger as noted by the US State Department “The United States is concerned about recent actions by Guyana that may undermine democratic principles, including apparent misapplication of the Guyanese constitution and certain court rulings,” it is the damage being done to the institutions and character of persons who accept these appointments that is the greatest cause for national concern.
Upon the passage of the no-confidence motion on the 21st December 2018, Cabinet stood resigned; upon the CCJ ruling of 18th June 2019, Cabinet stood resigned; Upon the expiry of the constitutionally stipulated period of 90 days for an Election, the 19th September 2019, the Granger administration became illegal and Cabinet stood resigned; upon the proclamation of the March 2nd, 2020 Election date, Cabinet stood resigned; upon the proclamation of the dissolution of Parliament on the 10th of January 2020, Cabinet stood resigned, and yet Granger’s Cabinet meets and approves board appointments as if oblivious to their lack of legal status to so do.
This ‘cabinet’ decision follows closely on the highly-questionable decision to clear eighty contracts at the end of 2019, and use monies budgeted in 2019 to make payments in 2020 in clear contravention of the laws of Guyana.
There is no doubt that the actions of Granger’s Cabinet since 21st December 2018 will all be reversed soon enough, I am sure the CCJ will be eager to affirm their rulings if/when legal challenges are mounted. However, the damage to the reputation of individuals who are participants will be lasting. The offers of appointment were gazetted on the 1st of February, ironically the same edition that lists APNU+AFC members of parliament who have failed to submit their declarations to the Integrity Commission. It may be prudent for persons who may not know of their appointment to check this edition expeditiously.
In closing, I would advise appointees to weigh the arguments carefully before arriving at any decision; for a person can only lose their integrity once; after that, it is a lifelong struggle to regain credibility and trustworthiness. The lesson may have come too late for David Granger, but for those who have been offered appointments, a short, polite refusal would speak volumes.
Yours faithfully,
Robin Singh
