Dear Editor,
The cases heard this week were well prepared by the parties involved and do present some interesting follow-up discussions.
In the CCJ case, Mr. Mendes SC in his summation did present a worthy summary which suggests action be taken for the resolution of the current conflict of jurisdiction of the court. As the court clarified, the lists for the National Assembly and President are the same, and go through only one process of selection. Thus, bringing into question the need for a separate court for the finality of the process for the President. AG Mr. Williams did remind the court that the President not being a member of the National Assembly was the rational for the exception. However, it should be noted that the High Court allows for the CCJ after the Court of Appeal, while the High Court is circumvented in the case of the President and the Court of Appeal specifies finality in the determination. This inherent conflict does provide for the possibility of having a minority elected President and a majority elected Prime Minister. Something that the country has never seen before. It would encourage increased bipartisanship and allow for mutual development. However, the current case before the court could result in the proposed elimination of this apparent constitutional conflict. The concern of an expansion of the jurisdiction of the court does continue to linger and will most likely prove to be the largest obstacle to a potential mixed governance model.
In the case on the Venezuela border controversy, the question and concerns raised in the ICJ do clarify the need for increased reliance on our powerful allies and the need for separation of local economic activities between the local citizens of the two countries up until the implementation of the Award. This will reduce the concern of any obstacle to the implementation of the Award across the various solution considerations, which Venezuela is trying to propose as areas of entanglement between the two countries in Essequibo. Thus, insinuating their extensive occupation of the region.
The question posed as to a scenario of exhaustion of all peaceful methods including the use of the ICJ for resolution, yet having a resulting continued disagreement, does reemphasize the importance of having increased vigilance within our country. The elimination of a homestead for Venezuelan refugees under the current circumstances does look more attractive in the near term. Use of Ankoko Island could prove to be an amicable solution to the needed refugee relocation. The presence of allies who view Venezuela as a shared opponent would help as a deterrent to further conflict after the strengthened finality of a successful case at the ICJ. Mr. Greenidge’s recent comments do help reemphasize the importance that should be placed on such allies. It was good to see that Great Britain, the US and France were all well represented in the recent delivery of our presentation to the ICJ.
The upcoming broadcasts of the cases are anticipated to be extremely interesting and are sure to draw listeners throughout the region and around the world.
Yours faithfully,
Jamil Changlee
Chairman
The Cooperative Republicans of
Guyana
