Tag: Constitution

Concerned that President Granger’s refusal to name a date for elections can make Guyana the Region’s newest dictatorship, your letter writer Mr. Wesley Kirton implores “our leaders”…“[to] spare no effort to ensure that our dear country is not brought into global disrepute.” Mr. Kirton volunteered that his letter was being written while he was viewing television coverage of the UN Human Rights Council meeting at which several nations are condemning Saudi Arabia on its human rights record. No doubt Mr. Kirton understands that the right to vote is one of the most sacred human rights available (Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted in the Guyana Constitution) and that having refused to name a date, Granger is not only defying the National Assembly and the Courts – two of the three arms of the state – but also denying Guyanese of their human rights.  

What is strange is the suggestion by Kirton that it is some unnamed “our leaders” and not specifically Granger, who are bringing the country into global disrepute. Kirton knows as well as anyone else that it is Granger and no one else who has the power to name a date for elections. But Kirton then shields Granger from the consequence of his failure to name a date by his (Kirton’s) attempt to rewrite Article 106 (7) of the Constitution. With only thirteen days left before the expiry for the holding of the elections, Kirton belatedly calls on Granger to name a date and let GECOM justify its refusal to hold the elections on the date named!

Yesterday was truly a sad day for anyone who believes in the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. President David Granger it seems has rejected the proposals by the Leader of the Opposition Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo for the naming of a date for elections and for consequential matters following from that. Incredibly, and without any regard for the Constitution which I repeat, he is sworn to preserve and uphold, Granger informed Jagdeo that he has to “engage GECOM on the issue and thereafter another meeting will be held.”

If Granger wishes to be taken as seriously intent on observing the constitutional mandate imposed on him by the Constitution, he should at least have had that conversation with his handpicked Chairman of the Elections Commission before  meeting Jagdeo so that at the very least he would have been able to make a meaningful contribution to the meeting.

Last Saturday, while on a brief trip to New York, I appeared on a televised town hall style debate moderated by Mr. Sase Singh, and also featuring Vice President and Minister of Public Security Khemraj Ramjattan. The focus of the programme was the No Confidence Motion which saw the defeat of the APNU+AFC Government and its implications. Unfortunately, at several points during the programme I had to play the role of fact checker in response to Mr. Ramjattan’s cavalier disregard for the facts, his misquoting of the Constitution particularly in relation to Article 106 (7) [the holding of elections], Article 162 (8) dealing with the extremely limited powers of GECOM regarding the postponing of elections; his repetition of the visibly discredited notion that the lowest majority of 65 is 34; his misciting of the Vanuatu case despite the dismissal of that case’s relevance to Guyana; and his glib reference to the doctrine of necessity to justify the refusal and failure of the Granger Administration to comply with the No Confidence Motion.

The only accurate comment by Mr. Ramjattan on the doctrine was its association with Mr. J.O.F Haynes. In fact, I would make bold to say that Haynes’ brilliant, erudite and exhaustive analysis of the doctrine and its application to not one but two revolutionary changes in Grenada – a coup in 1979, and the removal of the 1979 revolutionary government in 1983, all of which came to an end with the American invasion on 25 October 1983.

Today marks eighty-seven days since the PPP/C tabled its No Confidence Motion and fifty days since it was passed, the Government defeated, Cabinet including the President ceased to exist, and the imposition of a ninety days deadline for the Government to hold fresh elections, unless extended by a two-thirds vote of the National Assembly. All of this was confirmed by the Chief Justice more than one week ago.  

The GECOM Administration and its Executive comprising the Chief Election Officer and his team are fully aware of all of this and it is only appropriate for them to explain to Guyanese their action or justify their inaction since then in relation to their duties and functions regarding elections as set out under Article 62 and 162. It certainly cannot be for want of money: their budgetary allocation for 2019 is a whopping $5,371 million. At least publicly, GECOM has shown a troubling inertia in discharging its constitutional mandate with the cancellation by the Chairman of two meetings which he was scheduled to have with the Private Sector Commission being a good example.