Let’s face the grim reality of what’s ahead for Guyana

Aug 26, 2008 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,
At the time of this writing, which would be day two of CARIFESTA X, I am getting mixed reviews, via Internet, about the various presentations; and while I join other overseas Guyanese in awaiting the final verdict on the overall presentation, I can only hope, for the sake of both performers and spectators, that Carifesta lives up to high expectations of what our region is capable of, in showing off our rich and diverse cultures.

But while I am sure that some may see the event as purely cultural, others have already attached a political string, linking the event to the PPP government.

The PNC, for example, decided to boycott Government-sponsored programmes of the event. Some PPP supporters, on the other hand, have openly promoted the Government, while seeking to laud the staging of the event.

And it is because of this element of politics, which has found its way into and around CARIFESTA, that I am sure Guyanese see this event as an open spigot from which gushes a welcome respite from partisan political bickering, unrelenting economic hardship, and social unease over armed criminals on the loose.

While it is unclear whether fellow West Indians will leave Guyana thinking all is well among Guyanese and with the Guyana economy, what is clear is that Guyanese must brace themselves for a return to normal living outside the celebratory atmosphere.

That is, unless the Government can somehow extend and incorporate the atmosphere into its style of day-to-day governance, so that Guyanese will have reason to continue celebrating, even after CARIFESTA is over.

Can this happen? Is it asking too much for this to happen, given realities that still face the Government and people?

If there are two important pieces of post-CARIFESTA news that await the Government and people of Guyana to help determine whether there is reason to continue celebrating, they have to be (1): the recent Auditor General’s 2006 Report that contains some glaring inconsistencies, and which report is set for discussion by the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee after Parliament’s August recess is over, and ( 2): the recent ruling by Justice William Ramlal (on the CN Sharma TV suspension case) that basically said President Bharrat Jagdeo is constitutionally immune to lawsuits and/or charges by private citizens.

Not enough has been written about the AG’s Report, but since the PNC was the party that sought the report via the House Speaker, we have to wait and see what kind of probing questions this party, as well as the other Parliamentary parties, will ask.

But Justice Ramlal’s recent ruling deserves a lot more analyses, especially in light of what is being perceived by many Guyanese as excesses by the President of Guyana. I read somewhere that Justice Ramlal is a constitutional scholar; but while I want to respect his ruling, I have to ask how he can not see that the President specifically stated in his decision to suspend Sharma’s licence that he was acting in his capacity as Minister of Communications?

By making such a ruling that failed to distinguish between different roles, Justice Ramlall set a precedent in which the President can now assume any role and do anything he wants, no matter how adverse to others; but especially those with whom he differs, and no one can seek redress under the laws of Guyana.

The ruling also says the President is basically above the law, regardless of what anyone says about the constitutional provisions that explicitly state only Parliament can take punitive action against the President. When will a PPP-dominated Parliament ever make such a decision? It could not have happened during the Burnham and Hoyte eras.

Most Guyanese know that the particular clause of the constitution that protects the President against suits and indictments was inserted there during the Forbes Burnham era to cater to his politically autocratic aspirations.

And when the PPP government had a chance, during the constitutional amendments in the late nineties, to expunge that clause, it refused to do so.

Now we know why. And now we also have reason to seriously question every single motive of this President hereafter.

Mr. Editor, even if the law grants the President immunity, what happens if some Guyanese interpret his remarks and actions as abusing his authority, and they know they have no recourse for justice in the one place that was established to ensure justice for all Guyanese – the courts? Can this not be used as grounds for sheer lawlessness?

I await analyses on this from Guyana’s constitutional scholars – at home and abroad!
Emile Mervin