Constitutions has numerous provisions to support continuation of the administration, parliament

Jul 09, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

Conventional wisdom has generally seemed to indicate that the central focus of any reform of the constitution must involve restrictions on the powers of the presidency. During the abbreviated tenure of the last administration two developments, in particular, seemed to support this view by exemplifying the concept of the primacy of the Presidency in the Guyana constitution and the suggestion that this retarded, rather than advanced, the development of democracy in our country.
In 2014 President Donald Ramotar, who led a minority PPP/C government, prorogued the National Assembly to forestall the threat of a no-confidence motion which was occasioned by the government’s insistence on its ability to disregard parliament’s right to approve budgetary allocations, thereby forcing early elections. The conflict between the executive and legislature had been signalled a few years earlier when parliament had moved a motion of no-confidence against a Cabinet minister citing ministerial failures which led to the employment of deadly force against unarmed citizens engaged in protest action. In both instances the President was quite adamant that the actions of the executive could not be constrained by the legislature; the Cabinet did not resign following the prorogation of the National Assembly in 2014 and continued to function in an unrestrained manner until general and regional elections were held the following year and the Cabinet minister which had lost the confidence of the National Assembly was not resigned or removed from office.
Less than 5 years after this seminal period of conflict between the executive and the legislature it would appear that the previous minority governing party which had championed the primacy of the executive over the legislature has now, out of office, adopted a contrary position and seem to be championing the primacy of the National Assembly and the Opposition Leader over the Executive President by demanding, in effect, the prorogation of the entire executive arm of the state following the passage of the December 2018 no-confidence motion. The current conflict between the executive and legislature is very dissimilar to the previous conflict in one very important respect. The Opposition Party is the minority in the National Assembly and sought to exploit a weakness in the constitution to engineer a temporary majority through collusion and deceit to force a no-confidence motion in order to undo the previous election which it lost and has refused to recognize to this day.
The constitution has not been re-written since the administration of President Ramotar, only its interpretation has changed. The constitutional provisions that existed, and were adhered to then, exist today.
Firstly, the period following the dissolution/prorogation of the National Assembly by the President, does not diminish the government’s abilities or powers; it is neither the practice or the law, and the CCJ should not infer or order otherwise, even if it is the demand of the PPP/C today. It is concerning that the assertions by the CCJ that the APNU+AFC administration is in “caretaker mode” and restrained from full functioning is neither rooted in our constitution or governmental precedence. The suggestion that the CCJ’s view is informed by constitutions and practice elsewhere is unfortunate and suggests an inherent antagonism to our presidential republican system which is not practiced by any other Commonwealth Caribbean state.
Secondly, it is not disputed that the constitution provides for the President to dissolve, prorogue and to extend the life of, the National Assembly and now it would appear that the reverse is also true and that article 106 (6) provides for the National Assembly to resign the Cabinet, including the President without making provisions for their succession. It appears also that parliament has dissolved itself, in the opinion of the Opposition Leader and this is supported by neither the President or the constitution. In a previous letter, published by this newspaper, I have described article 106 (6) as constitutional malware; its purpose is to create the perception of constitutional crisis and political instability in order to undo the results of the previous election and to force the CCJ and the international community to back the demands of the minority party. There are numerous provisions in the constitution to support the continuation of the administration and parliament and for parliament to resolve the date for the next elections.

Sincerely,
Oscar Dolphin

---

---