Cabinet has resigned

Feb 17, 2019 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

President David Granger was truthful when, at a political event in Vreed-en-Hoop, he announced that he had not resigned. He did not need to; he and his Cabinet had been resigned by operation of law on 21st December, 2018.
What remained unanswered was whether he and his Cabinet had accepted their fate. Over the past few days, notwithstanding the complex language employed, there have emerged implied confessions that the Cabinet has resigned. One Minister has made reference to a meeting of Ministers as a caucus, and another has referred to the same meeting as an extended ‘plenary’ of Ministers.
The Cabinet’s acceptance that it was resigned represents a victory for those local forces, which have been pressing for the Constitution to be respected. It was achieved because of relentless domestic and international pressure.
Cabinet is no more. By operation of law, Cabinet ceased to exist as at 21st December 2018, even though this was not operationalized until after the decision of the Chief Justice on January 31,, 2018.
The status quo ante no longer exists. The situation has changed. The Cabinet has resigned.
On the night when the no-confidence motion was passed in the National Assembly, the government accepted its defeat. One Minister was overheard consoling supporters by telling them that the Coalition had defeated the PPPC in the past and would defeat them again.
The government, however, turned full circle when it changed its mind, after receiving legal advice, which questioned the validity of the passage of the no-confidence motion. A private citizen coincidentally decided to challenge the validity of the motion, on the ground that persons who had sworn loyalty to a foreign power had voted on the motion.
The government then used its right to due process to contend that the Cabinet did not need to resign immediately. It is claiming that the status quo ante still exists, because it is exercising its right to appeal the decision of the Chief Justice.
The supporters of APNU and the AFC are hanging on to this slender thread as if it were a lifeline. Some are even going as far as saying that the government is not obligated to comply with the Chief Justice’s ruling [she made no orders] because her ruling is under appeal.
Imagine what would happen if every person convicted of rape, murder or manslaughter should decide that, after being sentenced, they should walk free because they plan to exercise their right of appeal all the way to the CCJ. Not because of a stay of the decision or being granted bail, but because they have a right of appeal!
A man was recently convicted of a drug-related offence. He was fined hundreds of millions of dollars and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He is likely to appeal his sentence. But imagine what would happen if he were to claim that his sentence is not applicable until he has exhausted all his appeals.
A decision of a court stands until it is overturned by a higher court. The ruling of the Chief Justice therefore stands, unless and until is rendered invalid by a higher court.
The status quo ante therefore cannot exist. The government is bound to comply with the Chief Justice’s ruling.
The government has complied with Article 106(6) – the part, which deals with the resignation of the Cabinet. But there remain the requirements of Article 106(7), which stipulates elections within three months or for such longer period as may be determined by a vote of two-thirds of the National Assembly.
There are fears that because of this violation, Guyana is headed towards an impending constitutional crisis. A few days ago, the Bar Council of the Bar Association of Guyana issued a statement in which it called on the President, the Leader of the Opposition and the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), to take such immediate steps to avoid a constitutional crisis.
The primary onus falls on the President. It has always been the principal responsibility of the President to avoid a constitutional crisis in the present instance.
From the time the no-confidence motion was declared passed, the President, or the persons performing the duties as President, ought to have publicly announced the resignation of the Cabinet. He then should have written to GECOM and inquired as to its readiness to hold elections within the constitutionally-stipulated period of 90 days.
There was no need for the Chief Whips of both of the main parties to have solicited a meeting with GECOM about its readiness. The President or the persons performing the duties of President should have done this.
It is still not too late to do the right thing and ensure that Guyana does not become, yet again, the constitutional pariah of the Caribbean.

---

---