A presidential candidate should be aware of the constitutional provisions

Sep 02, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Mr. Lincoln Lewis, not particularly known for his legal acumen, has wandered (or is it wondered!?) into the murky and treacherous waters of Constitutional Law, (Kaieteur News of Sunday August 15) all in an apparent attempt to uphold the rights of the electorate, in the evolving debate on the choice of presidential candidates (his letter stands in stark contrast to a more recent one from the distinguished jurist Mr. Brynmor Pollard S. C. on the Time Limit for Judicial Decisions Act 2009).
In so doing, he offers a number of propositions that are not substantiated by a closer reading of the provisions of our Constitution; yet, the writer proceeds with such certainty and conviction that, for the uninitiated, you would be excused for falling for his folly. For example, he writes that ‘….the rights of every citizen must be respected and honour [sic] to the letter.
As such no right can take precedent [sic) again] over another’. After a fair amount of circumlocution and a reference to something called “structural apartheid” he posits inter alia that ‘[T]he country must not… support anti-democratic practices which will give ammunition to the racists and agent [sic yet again] provocateurs….’
Mr. Lewis should realise that with rights go the accompaniment of obligations, buttressed by a time-honoured system of checks and balances, to be upheld if need be through recourse to a properly functioning judicial system: how can one man’s right of freedom of expression be equal to another’s right to privacy where, in publishing a statement, the former thereby impugns the character of the latter?
How can the freedom of association and assembly be on the same footing as the obligation to respect the laws relating to public gatherings?
Why did Mr. Lewis head towards the trench to elude arrest, if his right to assemble, or protest for that matter, is equivalent to the obligation to respect the laws related to permission for marches and not to disturb the peace? In each case, one set of rights became subservient to the other, given the facts and circumstances at the particular time.
I elaborate the point by referring anecdotally to a recent lively discussion involving a number of friends, including a former senior police officer and a serving junior officer, regarding stories in the news of acts or omissions of “judicial officials”, both former and sitting, which – as reported – could be considered to be out of kilter with their civic and/or professional responsibility.
One line of argument is that the refusal to submit to the breathalyser test is proximate to the refusal to submit to a medical examination, pursuant to the invocation of one’s right to privacy. To which I say “stuff and nonsense”, for the information gleaned from the relatively simple procedure of blowing into a device is limited and not as intrusive nor as revealing as a medical examination.
Moreover the result of the breathalyser test could help to preserve the most paramount right of them all, that is the right to life of other road users, by determining if a driver is inebriated to the extent that he cannot operate a motor vehicle on our roads, a fortiori along the East Coast, plagued as it is by the mini-bus wild-men and stray animals.
So Mr. Lewis, if perchance one could drag the refusal to submit to the breathalyser test – no doubt kicking and screaming – under the chapeau of the right to privacy, as some argue in relation to refusing to submit to a medical examination, should not the right to life of the other road users take precedence over the right to privacy of the suspected drunkard?
But more: how could a piece of legislation, which presumably is intended to curb the mischief of drunk driving, at the same time contemplate the refusal to submit to the test – the very thing which ought to drive fear into motorists and act as a deterrent to their excessive imbibing – without at least making the refusal so onerously punitive, that it is less attractive than submitting to the test?
Recall the elaborate PR campaign when the President assented to this Act; was all that for nought? And what about the lawyers who populate both (sorry, should I now say all three!?) sides of the House? These persons Mr. Lewis, are the guardians of the Law of the land, along with the judicial officials, including those referenced above.
Make no mistake: this is not like drinking in the privacy of your home, which you can do to your heart (or liver’s) delight, provided you do not disturb the peace or otherwise trample on the rights of your neighbours. And even if you were to become intoxicated, you would not be subjected to a breathalyser test as drivers would. Compare however, the ugly phenomenon of domestic abuse – wife-beating, if you will. While some men do not need to be drunk to visit abuse and violence on their spouses, there is nothing domestic about domestic violence, as Taurus Riley correctly stated. I place that kind of loutish and uncouth behaviour by males alongside the reported carryings-on by the judicial officers: how can a man beat a woman he is supposed to love? How can a Traffic Magistrate not himself respect the same specific legislation that he is duty-bound to enforce!?
The poIice should intervene in domestic disputes when a crime is committed or about to be committed, not take the unhelpful position which they often readily do, also in landlord and tenant disputes, that “that is a private matter”. During such disputes, using threatening language, breaches of the peace and other more serious offences such as assault in all its iterations often occur, so how could the police not intervene in such “private maters”?
Mr. Lewis’ misguided essay does serve the useful purpose of bringing into relief the parlous state of the system of constitutional and other legal guarantees, as a consequence either of the legislature in the form of self-defeating legislation, or through the courts, if some, not all – and I repeat not all – of the judicial officers are reportedly disrespectful of the law.
But when all the verbiage is stripped away, his erratic utterances appear to me to be nothing more than those of an Afro-Guyanese with Presidential ambitions, who believes that he is being unfairly discriminated against by the amount of melanin in his pigmentation, and who sees his chances of political advancement impugned by the current discourse about preference being given to an Indo-Guyanese: as to whether these are his personal ambitions, or perchance those of his “protester-in-arms”, I know not.
Race might not be a criterion for the choice of presidential candidate Mr. Lewis, but knowledge of the Constitutional provisions and how they are applied certainly should be. Oh yes, some humility when putting forward arguments never hurt either.
Name and address supplied

---

---