These actions are antithetical to democratic principles

Feb 08, 2019 Letters

---

 

DEAR EDITOR,

I write to counter the numerous and insistent misrepresentations, inadequacies and deliberate confusion surrounding the no-confidence motion, which have seemingly influenced the utterances and posturing of many individuals and organisations, local and foreign, and to express my concern at the steady and determined movement towards destabilization of the state.
Firstly, it is my contention that President David Granger has upheld the dignity and duty of the office of the President, throughout this saga and always, and has violated neither the spirit nor letter of the Constitution by maintaining his government in office.
According to article 92: “A person assuming the office of President in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution shall, unless his or her office becomes vacant under article 178, continue in office until the person elected to the office of the President at the next election held under article 91 assumes office”. Subsequent articles 93 & 94 articulate reasons for his removal from office and these do not include a no-confidence motion.
Article 99 (1) says that “the executive authority of Guyana shall be vested in the President and, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, may be exercised by him or her either directly or through officers subordinate to him or her. Regarding the tenure of the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Government article 104 states that “Article 101(1) and 103(2) shall have effect in relation to any period between a dissolution of parliament and the day on which the next election of members of the Assembly is held pursuant to the provisions of article 61, as if Parliament had not been dissolved.
This would seem to be contradicted by article 103(6) “ The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by a vote of a majority of all elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence”, or not by article 103(7) “Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine, and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the election”.
From the foregoing it would seem abundantly clear, and constitutionally correct, for the President and his government to remain in office until a new President is sworn in. In fact any abdication of his presidential duties would be tantamount to dereliction of duty, which would be unthinkable to him and any patriotic Guyanese. The Constitution makes no provision for a titular, ceremonial or non-executive President and a caretaker or partial government.
Regarding the holding of elections several issues do not seem to have been adequately addressed. The articles of the constitution that relate to the no-confidence motion make absolutely no reference to the tenure, or dissolution of Parliament and proclamation of a date for elections by the President, National Assembly or the Judiciary.
Article 61 states that “an election of members of the National Assembly under article 60 (2) shall be held on such day within three months after every dissolution of Parliament as the President shall appoint by proclamation…”
The President has neither dissolved parliament nor has he proclaimed a date for elections. The Chief Justice has upheld, and article 103 (7) has made clear, that the National Assembly may also determine a date for the holding of new elections arising from the no-confidence motion as an alternative to the end of March 2019 deadline.
The National Assembly continues to sit, until dissolved, and I am encouraged it may yet do so, particularly since it would appear that MPs may vote, a la Charrandass, their consciences, and against their Party List. Moreover, GECOM which has a responsibility to advise the President of its readiness for such elections, and may by article 162 (1) cause the postponement for cause, is still to advise the country of a possible timeline for elections.
The Constitution and its processes must be respected by all, and threats to unleash public disorder in pursuit of political ambition must be taken with the seriousness it deserves. One thing is certain, defence of democracy and the rights and prosperity of the citizens of Guyana is not, and has never been the motivations of the architects of the no-confidence motion.
Charandass’ vote was antithetical to democratic principles as is the unbending demand that GECOM rush to elections before all the usual and reasonable safeguards for a credible and free and fair election.

Sincerely,
Oscar Dolphin

---

---