President trying to rewrite this article of the constitution

Mar 27, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I refer to my letter, “President Granger’s six characteristics are impossible to comprehend, (KN, March 25). I continue with my critique of these characteristics. The person is ”… deemed to have wide electoral knowledge…,” by whom? And what is ”wide electoral knowledge?” The person must also be ”… capable of handling electoral matters BECAUSE he or she is qualified to exercise unlimited jurisdiction in civil matters” … what type of ”electoral matters?”
Suppose the person is capable of handling ”electoral matters” (whatever that means), but for a reason other than being qualified to exercise unlimited jurisdiction in civil matters, what then? It is also clear that only a lawyer of seven (7) years standing is ”qualified to exercise unlimited jurisdiction in civil matters.”
Therefore, the President is importing into the ‘fit and proper’ category of persons, legal qualifications, which is clearly the opposite of what the framers of the Article intended. Most fundamentally, none of these requirements/characteristics is required by the Constitution. If the framers intended to require persons with electoral experience of some kind, they would have expressly done so in the Article. They did not. To attach these requirements, is to pervert the Constitution.
The fourth characteristic listed by the President, is even more problematic. It reads:
“d) That person will not be an activist in any form (gender, racial, religious, etc);”
My first observation is that the categories of activism which are contained in the brackets are unlimited by the use of the word ”etc.” Therefore, a person who is an activist in any conceivable area is automatically disqualified. Accordingly, a religious activist/leader, a gender rights activist/leader, a human rights activist/leader, a champion for democracy and democratic values, an advocate for the rule of law and constitutionalism, a consumer rights activist/civil society advocate and thousands of other categories of persons are automatically disqualified.
I must emphasize that the very Constitution itself, in a number of Articles beginning from Article 138 to 151, guarantee to every citizen of this country, as a fundamental freedom, the right to hold opinions, express views, agitate, protest for and form associations in relation to advocate for and in advocacy of these very issues. Moreover, the Constitution protects them against any form of discrimination or unequal treatment if they choose to exercise the said same rights and freedoms.
In one swipe, the President has denuded thousands of Guyanese of these Constitutional protections and freedoms and disqualifies them from being eligible to hold an important constitutional post in their country. It begs the question, what quality of legal advice is his Excellency receiving and from whom? It is extraordinarily difficult to accept that these constitutionally heretic propositions emanate from a legally trained mind. Even certain Judges, who appear to enjoy the confidence of this Administration, would be disqualified on the ground that at one time or another, they would have engaged in gender/child rights advocacy of some kind. Imagine the most passionate crusader for free fair elections, would no longer be eligible to be appointed Chairman of the GECOM, because of his advocacy! Space does not permit me to address the other characteristics outlined by the President. But I believe I have made my point.
It is excruciatingly clear that the President is attempting to re-write Article 161 (2) of the Constitution, by importing into it a plethora of issues, requirements and qualifications which are not in that Article and which cannot be implied or insinuated, even if, one is to give that Article its most elastic construction. The legal truth is that if the framers wanted those matters to be included they would have expressly done so. The President’s sentiments as expressed in the missive under review, in my respectful opinion, are clearly ultra vires and in violation of the Constitution.  In 1996, the entire Parliament was guilty of what the President is now doing. The Parliament had unanimously enacted a law which made ID Cards, a mandatory requirement, for one to qualify to vote, but whereas, the Constitution qualifies one to vote if one is eighteen years (18) and registered to vote. Justice Claudette Singh in the elections Petition filed by Esther Pereira, had no difficulty in ruling that the requirement of the ID card was ultra vires, unlawful and in violation of the Constitution.
It is quiet ironic that the Leader of the Opposition requested of the President clarifications; instead he received a maelstrom.  In the end, even God may not now qualify to be Chairman of GECOM.
Anil Nandlall

---

---