Dear Editor,
As I absorb and plough my way through the spiked thickets of elections, I conclude from my analysis and assessment that matters are poised to go in a dangerous and distressing direction. I share because of what I identify as a convergence of circumstances that tells me we are readying to go down the wrong road, a backward and destructive road. For from the early rumblings, I am guided to recognise the ominous signals of what might not have been weighed alone, but what are actually on the table waiting for the moment of putting into action.
My first thought – a faint hope only – was that after the inevitable journey to the CCJ is completed, that that was going to be it, with Guyana moving on. Now as I balance the whispers and writings, I am not so sure, and an alarm sounds; it is more like a premonition. Taking to another step, and given recent developments, I wonder whether the CCJ would get to deliberate, finish its work, and deliver its judgement. I would not be surprised if it is otherwise.
I submit this, because second, the coalition has gone on record to state that the CCJ has no jurisdiction on what is before it. If it has no jurisdiction, no standing, then why go through the motions, of waiting on it? As we have seen and noted, on matters relating to Guyana’s elections, the presence, reach, objectivity, evaluations, conclusions, and relevance, of regional bodies have all been called into sharp questioning by our political players. Of recent, the coalition has been the sharpest. When things are not finalised their way, one political group or the other, has taken to the rooftops to shout prejudice. The CCJ is in that position now.
Third, if the coalition is adamant that the CCJ has no jurisdiction, then I venture this: no jurisdiction means no authority at adjudication on the issue at hand. And if it has no right at adjudication, then there is no binding power in whatever proceeds from it. I say this differently: no jurisdiction (as warned by the coalition) translates to no adjudication (as interpreted by the coalition) that signifies no observation (as could very well be the reaction by the coalition). For its part, the CCJ may decide that it does not have jurisdiction thereby dismissing us to our own devices, however destructive those are. I believe that they will prove to be, as based on a couple of elated developments. Everything is related in what I sense are the building blocks to positions already cemented.
Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo came out to wring his hands publicly over the unsatisfying and unacceptable foreign intrusions, excessive in quantity and depth, that have not helped, but hurt the state of Guyana’s elections affairs. I disagree with him, where we see what is only convenient to us, and accept what meets with our expectations. Regardless of my thinking, what I heard the prime minister take to the microphone and deliver was that enough is enough. For we are a sovereign country, and no more of this will be tolerated. Thus, when I learn that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called for conceding by the coalition, my conclusion was quick and simple: it is water on a duck’s back. Mind made up. No more of this. We go our own way and take our destiny into our hand, as piloted by our own wise counsels. That was the fourth factor on how I see matters at this crucial point.
Fifth, and as if to confirm some, if not all of this, there came two developments on Friday. One was from Mr Keith Lowenfield, CEO of GECOM. This officer took to the podium to make his own declaration, but this time of a startlingly different kind: he will not abide by any orders that are ‘unconstitutional’. The CEO just unveiled his own palace coup publicly and beforehand to boot. This newest situation is so much a part of our endless problems, the law is whatever any Harry, junkie, or groupie decides that it is, as interpreted and applied. We love to spout law and Constitution in this country, but this is the garbage treatment, which both are subject to and has long been our individual history at the political level for criminal objectives. As to how this usurpation is handled, I wait to see.
Sixth, as if on cue, the coalition came forward to do two things. Reiterate its unalterable position that the CEO’s last recount declaration speaks accurately and matches its position. And stand in solidarity with him on his promise not to obey any ‘unconstitutional’ orders. It is the night of the generals, indeed; and the pretenses are just about over.
Last, I understand that there were trucks with flags and music in the city and some similar happenings in other areas. They are of the coalition. I offer this: such things are neither haphazard nor innocent nor without purpose. The word is out in the midst of the multitudes: we won; we are going all the way in, all out readying for celebrating. This is the rule of law known here. It is of the kind of men that we have as leaders. It’s swearing in time.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
