At no time was there any effort at bringing a new constitution into effect

Jul 14, 2015 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,
The recent decision by acting Chief Justice Ian Chang in case of Cedric Richardson v Attorney General and Raphael Trotman comes at an interesting time in Guyana’s political history.
During the run-up to the recent elections, there was considerable debate about the nature of our 1980 amended constitution and democracy in Guyana. Therefore, it is not surprising that the one-man constitutional court’s decision by the acting Chief Justice would generate significant discussions and controversy, in and out of Guyana.
As part of that public debate, a letter appeared in your letter column (‘Why not a referendum on the whole constitution? ‘SN, July 13), the author Vishnu Bisram posited that the time has come to examine the entire amended 1980 constitution, and, not some of its parts.
It is a position I suspect that would find general acceptance by all Guyanese in and outside of Guyana. As we seek to enhance and deepen our fragile democratic framework, the original 1980 constitution and its amended features, continue to prove deficient, or, in some instances, an impediment to the full democracy project.
However, the writer’s call for a new constitution is betrayed by the narrative appearing within his letter. Firstly, the continued use of “Burnham constitution,” reveals the true intent of the author. As far as I am aware, Burnham departed to the after-life some thirty years ago. During that period, there was the seven-year Hoyte administration, and, twenty three years of successive PPP administrations.
Editor, at no time, was there any effort at bringing about a new constitution into effect. We were prepared to go down the road of amendments rather than replace the old instrument. All of the political parties and actors endorsed that process. Therefore, it is time Bisram stops his deliberate linking of the amended constitution with Forbes Burnham.
In 2015, the constitution is ours, we preserved it but for some amendments. If Bisram is uncertain about the presence of Forbes Burnham, maybe he should do one of his ubiquitous polls requiring citizens to answer the question, is Burnham dead?
Secondly, the letter advances the argument that the process to alter or change a declared fundamental right of a constitution can only occur by way of electorate voting to do so. The Chief Justice and Bisram somehow view a process whereby two-thirds of an elective legislature, acting as agents for the electorate, is an undemocratic process. For all practical purposes, this argument asserts the supremacy of fifty plus one over agents acting on behalf of sixty-six percent of the electorate.
Leroy Nelson
Brooklyn, NY

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News