A few weeks ago, the Speaker of the National Assembly rejected the request by the APNU+AFC caretaker government that he should overturn the no-confidence vote that had gone against it some days before on the ludicrous grounds that 33 is half of 65 and that thus 34 is required for a majority. Many, particularly PPP/C supporters, commended him for his courage, while in a similar vein many government supporters were livid. In the words of one of them, ‘Scotland should just collect he pension and stay the hell home: who he think put him there.’
I have since heard other not so muted comments about what the Speaker did, but did not think about writing about this issue until last Friday night after the Chief Justice (ag) gave her decision, which also for the most part went against the government. In a discourse with another staunch PNCR supporter only hours after the decision, I was quite calmly informed that the judge and her whole family are known PPP/C sympathisers so her decision was not surprising. This went against my own views so I requested some evidence of this and was told that she had gone against the government before, but that more to the point, the late Anglican Bishop Randolph George, who was chairperson of the Integrity Commission under the PPP/C, was her uncle and a known PPP/C sympathiser!
I have come to the consideration of social concerns from too diverse a background to make a fetish of ‘the law’ and legal interpretations; what usually interests me much more is justice and related issues such as ‘intentions.’ And if you consider the actual objective of those who are legally fighting the no-confidence decision, you will find that none of decisions so far has gone against them. Indeed, just as Donald Trump’s constant harping about ‘fake news’ and referring to certain media operatives as ‘enemies of the people’ is dangerous to both the individuals and the body politic of which they are an essential element, so too is bringing these capricious cases and in our kind of political environment, claiming to and making much of one’s so-called loss, undermines the judicial process and wittingly or unwittingly, demonizes its operatives.
The mere absurdity of the government case should have been sufficient to make the point that the regime’s expectation is not to win but to delay. Furthermore, for historical reasons, it has no qualms about using the courts to achieve this objective. If the PPP/C and Charrandass Persaud could act in an underhand manner, why should the government not also act in that manner; after all, playing delaying tactics and other games with the judicial system was the stock in trade of the PPP/C. The promise of this government to do better than the previous one has long lost its currency!
I tried to explain to both my interlocutors that the coalition received precisely what it expected from both the Speaker and the Chief Justice largely because the issue is naturally framed in a manner that any decision would be favourable to the regime but the wrong decisions would have been costly to both adjudicators.
I pointed out that the Speaker is supposed to be independent and the entire Assembly has historically proceeded on the assumption that 33 is the majority in the 65 member House. For him to have ruled against the opposition on the 34 and other ridiculous arguments would not only have placed him firmly in the government camp but would also have made him a laughing stock and injured the relatively good reputation that he has taken a lifetime to build. And in any case, the opposition would have taken the matter to court and possibly- as has turned out to be the case- win.
Indeed, the case can be made that the Speaker helped the government by not taking a stronger stance for the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary and instead indulging in the clever placatory manoeuvre of pointing them in the direction of the courts, to which he knew they would go anyway.
Finding herself in a similar position to the Speaker, the Chief Justice made a similar decision. Since the case the government was presenting was extremely whimsical, she must have assessed like most of us that its intent was not to win but to delay. Why should she then sacrifice the good profile she has been cultivating by doing other than the Speaker did: let the issue go up the road it was going to go in any case. I reminded my interlocutors that all judges have their ideological biases and that if I were to characterise Chief Justice Roxane George, she would be placed more in the coalition camp. After all, she did, without being asked to during the case relating to the appointment of the chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission, present the president with the opportunity to unilaterally appoint the chairperson of that institution, which is precisely where the political rubber hits the road.
Therefore, let us stop the hyperbole and not become carried away with ideas that these decisions in any way represent the political/judicial system becoming mature, and talk about there being no pressure on judges is certainly extremely questionable (SN:2/2/2019). Given how the issue is framed, the decisions were never going to be sufficiently consequential for this kind of billing.
Secondly, notwithstanding all their talk when in opposition about the PPP/C government not making permanent appointments to the two highest judicial positions, now in government we see no urgency on the part of the government in this regard, although the PPP/C appears to have suggested that they would accept the two persons at present acting in those positions. Indeed, knowing how these two political parties operate, I suspect that the false story about Bishop George being Justice George’s uncle is being peddled at the bottom houses simply because these two judges have been making a decent reputation for themselves and Africans are asking why they are not being appointed.
My interlocutors remained hostile: the fact that the decisions were sensible ones that did little harm to the real intentions of their side made little difference. Both of them appeared unable to wrench themselves away from the fact that their party had lost, and the least suggestion of the possible loss of political authority was traumatic and led to visions of various forms of treachery. Yet all may not be lost: in the quiet which followed a staunch defence, another coalition supporter opined ‘you can justify anything these days’!
