Is it a matter of wanting total control?

Mar 28, 2012 Letters

---

 

DEAR EDITOR,
In what is promised to be a landmark case in the history of Guyana, Chief Justice Ian Chang has signalled that the High Court has the jurisdiction to hear whether the Guyana Constitution has been breached on grounds that the composition of a parliamentary committee breached the principle of proportionality.
Justice Chang’s decision paves the way for the lawyers on both sides to make their case in the courtroom. I suppose the argument will be largely centred on the whole question of proportionality, and whether the action of the opposition parliamentary parties, and that of the Speaker, breached that principle, when they decided to set up the Select Committees and voted for the PPP/C to get four seats the APNU four and the AFC one.
Any person with the faintest idea of how the law works would understand and appreciate that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and laws promulgated or action taken that is extraneous to the constitution would be deemed null and void. I believe therefore that the Chief Justice’s decision might be proper in so far as he is exercising due caution to ensure that the constitution remains paramount.
However, while not attempting to try the case in the public domain, I do believe that the defendants in the case would have had good reason to believe that the Court would have refused to entertain the Attorney General’s motion, since based on the circumstances, a prima facie case of constitutional breach seems impossible.
Taking the question of proportionality in its most ordinary and literal sense, one will quickly recognise that distributing the seats on the Select Committee, based on the PPP/C’s formula, will in fact support the very argument the Attorney General (AG) is in support of, that is that the seats should be distributed based on votes won.
Should the PPP/C get their way to have the seats allocated based on their formula, this concoction would go contrary to the principle of proportionality. The undisputed fact is that the parliamentary opposition secured more votes than the PPP/C; logic follows that it should, therefore, get more seats on the Select Committee.
The PPP/C is arguing that it should get at least five out of the ten seats, since it has approximately 49% of the votes, while the combined opposition should get the other five. The question is where is the fairness in this composition? Further, how can we justifiably establish that the principle of proportionality will be upheld, in this scenario, when in fact we will be equating the minority with the majority?
The November 28th Elections rendered the PPP/C government a minority regime which holds on to executive control, while the combined opposition garnered more than fifty-one percent of the votes, thereby, making it the effective and lawful majority in the parliament. This is the simple fact, and to adopt the PPP/C’s formula, would be to cast aside that cardinal principle of democracy which speaks to ‘majority rule with minority rights respected’.
Further, it will go against the wishes of the people who voted to ensure that they (the people) are the majority. The November election results, as declared by GECOM, did not pronounce that there was a tie in the votes between the opposition and the majority, and this reality is expected to reflect in the parliament.
Critical to the hearing is the issue of deadlock, which was properly raised by MP Amna Ally when the matter was considered in the parliament. I do believe that any party which has the interest of the people at heart would first be cognisant of all the possible impending blocks which may have the potential to work against national interest, and render the parliament a mere ‘talk shop’.
The PPP/C over the last two decades has prided itself with bulldozing the parliament and passing bills and taking action which it considers to be in its interest rather than the interest of the Guyanese people. I believe it is this fear of losing that grip of total control that has resulted in the court action in question.
Like I said, this case is of much significance to the entire nation, and therefore, I would urge all Guyanese to pay attention, as it has implications on all of our lives. Accordingly, I also wish to remind our leaders and activists, including lawyers on both sides, to use this opportunity to bring the importance of the constitution closer to our citizens.
Let us use the time to educate Guyanese on their rights and responsibilities as citizens. Some clarity on what constitutes proportionality may also be useful, to help Guyanese to waddle through this all-important case.
Lurlene Nestor

---

---