Did the rule of law exist under Jagdeo/ Ramoutar presidencies?

Jul 19, 2016 Letters

Dear Editor,

Former President Bharat Jagdeo claims that the rule of law is under threat in Guyana. By stating that the rule of law is under threat he at least acknowledges that it exists today. During the last 15 years of PPP administrations Guyana was ruled but not by law. The party and government he led was the very definition of arbitrariness, so that there was some improvement since the APNU-AFC came to power. He is the last person to credibly talk about the rule of law. His examples are particularly egregious and they are too many. Editors restrict space so that we can only highlight issues. The records are however abundant, even in the daily newspapers going back to the year 2000.
The Constitution is the supreme law of Guyana and the President must be particularly circumspect in upholding the constitution. One does not know where to begin.
Former Prime Minister Sam Hinds was constitutionally entitled to become President upon vacation of the presidency by former President Janet Jagan. How come that did not happen? That is not all. The Constitution expressly prescribes a maximum of two terms for any President of Guyana. Yet, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, he is busy contriving all manner of subterfuge in order to spend more time in the presidency. He takes lessons from these power drunk tyrants, and not from constitutional conformists in normal democracies who gracefully end their term and proceed honourably to another life.
What about Local Government Elections? There was none throughout the entire duration of his presidency. APNU-AFC held those elections within one year of ascension to power, while he willfully denied the people of Guyana their constitutional right to elect local leaders of their choice. In addition, he foisted all kinds of naïve political contraptions upon them, based on his ideology of domination and centralism.
What about Parliament and its duty to represent all of the people through both government and opposition? Throughout his presidency he denied the right of Parliament to even exercise oversight over the privatisation of eighty (80) percent of Guyana’s economy, thereby denying the people any say in what was being done in their name, in such a nationally consequential matter. NICIL effectively usurped the powers of the parliament. Offensive is not the strongest word we want to use in this particular case.
Would he say for example, that the executions and extrajudicial killings during his presidency were representative of the rule of law? Organised crime is a matter of some significance. To establish SOCU the PPP had to accept the principle of necessity to deal with organized crime, in order to proceed to the stages of policy and a Unit. But did the PPP really intend that it should be effective? Who was prosecuted for organized crime and money laundering which he now claims the SOCU was established to address? Did President Jagdeo declare his assets, as required by the Guyana Integrity Commission Act (1997)? As a Member of Parliament and President he was in breach since it became law and he is still in breach.
Guyana’s procurement regime was subject to particular abuse. And what about his treatment of the Fourth Estate, and handling of the Ethnic Relations Commission and the Public Service Commission. People like Dr. David Hinds, Lincoln Lewis and Freddie Kissoon have extensively prosecuted the case against him in these areas so that there is no need to re-litigate here.
More generally, he can choose to ignore the fact that the Audits have convicted the PPP as a political organization and government, regarding its abysmal failure to comply with the law. Yet he talks glibly about democracy and rule of law as though he subscribes to their inherent values. He deceives no one. There are some things one must actually believe before one could even sound convincing.
Guyanese indeed want to live in a technologically and economically progressive country and in a culturally mobile society, underpinned by a modern democracy and the rule of law, where leaders practice sophisticated politics and government. Is he the spokesperson? Former President Jagdeo is no subscriber to the tenets of the rule of law. Since when did he become a convert? One thought that he is an arch communist like Hugo Chavez, and no respecter of the law. He only mouths things off the cuff. There is no evidence of any convictions regarding the rule of law.
The people should therefore prosecute the case against him every time he makes outlandish claims regarding the rule of law, as he is no example of propriety regarding the rule of law.
Ivor Carryl

1 thoughts on “Did the rule of law exist under Jagdeo/ Ramoutar presidencies?”

andyycapp July 19, 2016 at 1:44 pm

Well said Ivor. My belief is that the media pays him too much attention, and like the Donald Trump character his utterances become more outlandish, and deranged with the attention.

Comments are closed.

Latest News