No reason for a meeting between the President and Opposition Leader

Mar 01, 2019 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The proposal for a meeting between the President and the Leader of the Opposition is bizarre. No useful purpose can be served and no useful outcome had by such a meeting, given the present situation in which the government has placed itself.
The government ill-advisedly challenged the validity of the no-confidence motion. In so doing, the government locked itself into a corner by which it could not have asked GECOM to commence any preparation.
GECOM has engaged in actions which have been perceived as being dilatory. GECOM, which hosted elections as late as November 12, 2018, is now claiming that it will need at least five months to prepare for elections, and this is without the requirement for house-to-house registration.
A constitutional crisis is brewing, because there is no way that GECOM, having not readied itself since December 21, 2018, can now be ready to host elections by March 21, 2019. If no elections are held by that date and if the period of holding such elections is not approved by the National Assembly, the government will be illegal.
The government, or at least some of its members, may be of the opinion that it can invoke the de facto doctrine in order to justify staying in office beyond March 21, 2019. But as Christopher Ram pointed out in a recent programme, which was streamed live via social media, the doctrine cannot be invoked if a situation is avoidable.
If the government has been inert in complying with the no-confidence motion, then it can be justifiably argued that the doctrine is being used conveniently to frustrate the constitutional provisions rather than cater for a lacuna, which was unavoidable.
The proposal for a meeting between the President and the Leader of the Opposition must be viewed in the context of the government seeking to now demonstrate that it has made attempts to avoid a constitutional crisis, and in particular, to allow for the extension of the time by which elections are to be held.
However, the government finds itself in a tangle. For one, how is it that it is now trying to have discussions to supposedly extend the time by which elections are due when all along it said that there is no final decision yet by the court on the validity of the no-confidence motion. In pursuing an appeal of the Chief Justice’s ruling, the government is restating its conviction that the no confidence motion was invalid and therefore there is, at least in its opinion, no obligation to call elections.
It also finds itself in the awkward position of not being able to provide the Leader of the Opposition with a precise date when elections can be held. On the one hand, it does not subscribe to the view that elections are to be held since it holds that the no confidence vote was invalid. And then on the other hand, it has had no discussions with GECOM as to when exactly elections, if necessary, will be held.
What then, is there to be discussed with the Leader of the Opposition? The better option would be to meet first with GECOM.
The only purpose which will be served by having a meeting between the President and the Leader of the Opposition would be to demonstrate that it took steps to avoid a constitutional crisis and therefore, if needs be, has cause to invoke the de facto doctrine to stay in office beyond March 21, 2019.
Any such invocation is going to be hotly contested by constitutionalists, because it is a doctrine of last resort. The de facto doctrine legitimizes actions of public officials, including governments, if it is later found that the said officials of governments were holding office illegally.
Desmond Hoyte was trying to be clever when he described the post -1997 PPPC government as de facto rather than de jure. For a government to be de facto, it not only has to have de facto possession of power, but also its hold on power has be to in compliance with the established legal order. The Coalition government will find it difficult to convince the Courts of the latter.
In examining the legality of the de facto doctrine, the fundamental question to be answered is whether the crisis, which triggered the invocation of the doctrine could have been avoided. The government will be hard pressed to demonstrate that at all times it acted in good faith to avoid a constitutional crisis.

Latest News

No reason for a meeting between the President and Opposition Leader

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 27th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Olympic Kremlin crowned Horse-of-the-Year at One Guyana Thoroughbred...

Guyana Squash Association celebrates historic...

Western Tigers will be 50 this year ‘2025’

UG Honours outstanding athletes at Annual Sports...

East Bank Pool Club set to Cue Off 2025...

Guyana Police Force Senior Officers defeat...

Features/Columnists

The government is in choppy waters

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

Half price electricity by half year

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

No reason for a meeting between the President and Opposition Leader

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 27th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]