Latest update December 19th, 2024 3:22 AM
The transgressions of the past are lurking on the horizon
Dear Editor,
The recent decision by the CJ in support of the President’s unilateral decision to appoint Patterson as Gecom Chairman can be classified as a lethal blow to democracy in Guyana. This decision touches on the core values.
Anil Nandlall was against constitutional reform last year. He was very vocal on his platform. He wrote several missives against constitutional reform. In one, he wrote, “The need for compliance trumps the need for reform”.
Since Granger made the unilateral appointment, Anil has been crying” foul.”
After the CJ ruled in favour of the unilateral appointment, Anil wasted no time in appealing the case on behalf of Mustapha Ali, citing 14 discrepancies on the matter. Anil’s main contention is that the CJ’s decision does not honour or support the spirit of the Constitution.
In my opinion, a constitution must have clear language, not spirits, these are vague and unseen things. Surely!
Nandlall, being the brilliant lawyer that he is, would be aware of that. Political persuasions and conveniences have the power to nullify brilliance. With all that has transpired so far, if you ask Anil now if he feels that the constitution needs to be reformed, he may or may not give an honest answer.
Further, Anil contended that the decision distorts and nullifies the intentions of the framers of the constitution on a matter that is sacrosanct to the holding and the conducting of free and fair elections in Guyana. I believe that.
But why couldn’t the “intentions of the framers” be constructed into concrete language? The controversy is centered around the phrase, “a list that is not unacceptable to the president.”
What thesis could be applied by law to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable to the president if he so desires not to concur with the established realm of orthodoxy that Anil seems dependent on?
We must be cognizant that our constitution has enshrined the powers of a demigod on our presidents, and governing political rulers have never shown any intent to change that. It is my belief that the framers of the “not unacceptable” phrase, being politically affiliated, had deliberately set a loophole to wriggle out, in the event of a suspect list being presented to their favourite president. Now the Guyanese people have become the unsuspecting victims of their trap.
Placed in its right perspective, this matter transcends political affiliation and political conveniences. It threatens to compromise the rights of citizens to fairly and freely elect a Government of their choice in accordance with democratic principles. When this fundamental right is threatened in any minute form, it should invoke a code red response from the citizenry. That did not happen. Why? Because the populace realizes that the theory – “Governments should be the servants of the people” – is a lie. They had 52 years since independence to contemplate that it is the other way around in Guyana
Guyana’s History, since independence is replete with examples of what the destruction of this basic template on democracy can do to a nation.
The Chief Justice’s ruling on the unilateral appointment of Gecom chair, left unchanged, opens the pathways to the probability of history repeating itself.
Granger, moving from leader of the opposition to the presidency quickly found his alma mater in law and pounced upon the “not unacceptable to the president” clause.
In his UN speech, he asked that body to commit to resolve to uphold democratic principles among member states, then does the contrary by making a unilateral appointment to Gecom chair. Now putting critics of the govt. behind bars is being contemplated in the sedition clause 18 of the Cybercrime bill.
Sociologists have opined that criticism is the greatest impetus to make people adopt moral values. Instead of channeling criticism as a motivator, the coalition is seeking to put their critics in prison by instituting sedition charges – this is the hallmark of a dictatorship. The signs are there!
Whatever little progress was made towards the attainment of democracy in the early 1990’s through the Carter Center is hanging precariously by a single thread (the appeal on the CJ’s decision). The transgressions of the past are lurking on the horizon.
Rudolph Singh
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
The stakes are high in Guyana’s democracy
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- In any vibrant democracy, the mechanisms that bind it together are those that mediate differences,... more
Let the asylum seekers go: a first step for Venezuela to rebuild relations in the Americas
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – The government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela has steadfast support from many... more
Weekend Cartoon
