The two Bs: Bharrat and Basil

Jul 07, 2018 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

While the CCJ was hearing the presidential term limit case, Attorney-General Basil Williams made an intriguing remark on an unrelated subject, but the positions of the two Bs – Basil Williams and Bharrat Jagdeo – actually coincided. Here is the essential argument of the first B (Bharrat) in the case that he lost before the CCJ.
There are changes to a country’s laws and amendments to a country’s constitution that have far-reaching consequences, therefore these changes should be made directly by the people rather than their representatives in Parliament. In other words, there are situations that call for the direct approval of the people. This is done in a referendum.
The first B contended that the Parliament could not have amended the constitution to prevent a citizen from holding the office of president for any amount of terms, but should have put the issue to the electorate directly. The first B got a prodigious boost and felt he had victory in the CCJ when the UK government held a referendum to determine if the UK should leave the European Union. The majority voted to leave. But then the first B suffered a setback.
A Guyanese woman who is a UK citizen by naturalization asked the courts to decide whether there should not be approval by Parliament of the decision to leave the UK. In other words, she was saying that the people’s representatives must make the decision, that is, Parliament. The courts ordered that the Parliament must decide on leaving the UK. The first B didn’t like the British court decision because the British judges saw an essential role for the people’s representatives.
While the CCJ hearing was taking place, the second B (Basil) made a statement to the press that caused the first B to think that the CCJ might rule in his favour, that is, the first B. Asked for his opinion of amending the anti-narcotic legislation to allow for lighter sentences such as fines for conviction of possession small amounts, the second B said that such an issue should be put to the people directly in a referendum.
The first B jumped so high for joy that he got stuck while coming back down to the ground. Why was he so elated at what the second B said about going directly to the population for amending the law? You see, the first B thought that he got the CCJ case wrapped up, because the second B was the Attorney-General in Guyana, and was arguing the case for the supremacy of parliament right in front of the full house of the CCJ (all seven judges), yet contradicted himself by telling the Guyanese people that certain laws should only be amended by referenda.
The first B thought that the seven judges could not have missed the blatant contradiction in the Attorney-General’s theorizing about constitutional law and legal politics.
The fans of the first B were assured their man would win, because the position of the second B was graphically explanatory. This is how they polemicized on the remark of the second B on the marijuana law. To amend a simple Bill, the second B thinks it necessitates a referendum, then how can the second B go to the CCJ and tell the court that it is alright to amend an important section of the constitution by an act of parliament. On the surface, these fans look like they had a good and plausible adumbration. But as we know, the CCJ upheld the supremacy of parliament.
Where does this leave the theorizing on law and politics by the second B? Surely, his bosses in the Cabinet were holding their breath when the second B talked about going directly to the people to amend the marijuana law while the presidential term limit hearing was taking place. And to crown it all; he was the man arguing the case before the CCJ. His bosses must have asked why he had to say such a thing at the time the CCJ was hearing the matter; is he crazy?
Now that the presidential term limit litigation is over, the media ought to press the second B on his referendum desire on the issue of the marijuana amendment. Why is it necessary to go directly to the people to amend a simple Bill that is absolutely uncomplicated and absolutely unrelated to thorny issues involving the constitution, public institutions etc?
All the amendment seeks to do is to empower the judiciary to impose a fine rather than a mandatory prison term on conviction of small amounts. Why does the second B want a referendum for that? How about a referendum to choose the PNC’s chairman?

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News