Dear Editor,
There has been an eruption of a political tornado in Guyana that is attributed to PNCR’s Leader Mr. David Granger. Having been in hiding as portrayed by many of his supporters, Mr. Granger came out swinging. First, he boldly challenged the constitutional principle of free speech when he filed a whopping $(G) 2.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Kit Nascimento and mainstream media. It is noteworthy that this suit was filed after Granger has been receiving blistering attacks from disgruntled supporters. Granger next launched a subtle attack on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) by advocating a reduced role of the Court (CCJ) in Guyana election matters. Granger has recently been signaling to his supporters and others that he is a new man who is fired with a new vision that could still transform the Guyana political landscape. Granger had previously allowed APNU+AFC Parliamentary Opposition Leader Joseph Harmon to take the lead in almost every matter of national significance but has recently decided to curb that process by re-taking a major part of the leadership initiative. He has begun to launch a few political salvos hoping that those would crush his political adversaries and critics. But would this approach be enough to appease the disgruntled PNCR supporters?
A group of ten ex-army officers in New York demanded that Granger resign as leader immediately. “It is time for Mr. Granger and his self-appointed surrogate leader to exit the political scene and be replaced by a more progressive and young leadership.” And on Monday May 17, 2021, a New York PNCR group also expressed their displeasure. “As members of the PNCR groups in the New York Diaspora, we have all felt betrayed by a wobbly and inept leadership…” But while Granger may not be smart politically, he (Granger) is a crafty person in some respects. Notwithstanding the barrage of attacks Granger, in an effort to salvage his political career and legacy, has quickly moved to neutralize those harsh criticisms and has been trying valiantly to divert attention from his leadership woes onto the role of the CCJ in the election process. He is playing to many of his supporters who share a similar view on “foreign interference” in Guyana’s electoral process.
Granger and cohorts blame the CCJ for contributing to their loss of political power in 2020. Accordingly, Granger turns to the Caribbean Court of Appeal for comfort and speaks well about its competence. “The Court of Appeal was competent to rule… on electoral matters inside of Guyana… I do not think there is need for foreign intervention. The level of foreign influence in the period [March-August 2020] was phenomenal.” Yet, on another matter his deputy Joseph Harmon has asked Prime Minister Keith Rowley of Trinidad & Tobago to intervene in Guyana’s affairs to save the country from what they call PPPC’s “dictatorship.” There have been frequent references also that the CCJ, as a CARICOM institution, has only 4 Caribbean countries as members (Guy-ana, Belize, Barbados, and Dominica). The logical question being: “Why are Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago (where the CCJ sits), have not yet become members of the CCJ? While one cannot answer this question at this time, it should be noted that these countries do have access to an Appellate Court outside of their respective countries in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, UK.
Why Granger wants to restrict a major CCJ’s role on electoral review? When the High Court and the Court of Appeal (CoA) of Guyana ruled that Dr Bharrat Jagdeo could run for a third term as Presidential candidate, the CCJ ruled against Jagdeo, a decision applauded by Granger and cohorts. If that matter had ended at the Guyana CoA, Jagdeo would have been the PPPC presidential candidate in 2020. Granger defied the constitution and unilaterally appointed Justice James Patterson as GECOM chair. That decision was upheld by the Guyana High Court and the CoA but was overturned by the CCJ, a decision that infuriated the PNCR. Had it not gone to the CCJ, Patterson’s appointment would stand as constitutional. Then came the No Confi-dence Motion (NCM) which Granger’s government lost but refused to step down and argued that 34 is a majority of a 65 seat Assembly. If that matter did not go to the CCJ for resolution, it would have meant that 34, as a majority, is constitutional. And the CoA’s decision would not only pervert justice but also shake the foundation of mathematics. And let us not forget that had CoA been the court of last resort, that body would have likely accepted the tainted Mingo/Lowenfield election results and declare the APNU+AFC as the winner of the elections.
Granger tried exceptionally hard to seize victory from the PPPC and would have probably succeeded had it not been for the CCJ which ruled on the constitutionality of the elections results and process. No wonder Granger and cohorts do not have a good perspective on the CCJ, especially relative to election matters. About Granger’s struggle to retain political power, Dr. Vishnu Bisram reported that the PNCR made three unsuccessful attempts (post March 2, 2020) to install him (Granger) as President, despite knowing from their SoPs that they lost the 2020 elections. Though Granger has created a political stir for his recent outbursts, it is doubtful whether his diversionary tactics will mitigate his disgruntled supporters’ hostility towards his leadership style. Those supporters are concerned about his aloofness, his elitism, and above all, his failed attempt to seize political power. This feeling is reminiscent on how a segment of PNCR supporters felt when Desmond Hoyte lost political power in 1992. Granger’s rationale for advocating the CoA to be the court of last resort in election matters, is woefully inadequate and is couched with hidden meanings.
Sincerely,
Dr. Tara Singh