We have an obligation to Guyanese to provide the other side

Aug 30, 2019 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

When Minister Jaipaul Sharma called me about a vituperative statement the WPA issued about his rejection of 5000 American dollars of oil money to the lower income strata, my advice was that he confront the WPA with his assertions.
In my Saturday, September 1, 2018 column captioned, “My advice to Minister Jaipaul Sharma,” this is what I wrote; “After a long chat, my advice to him was to reply to the WPA’s denunciation of him and let the Guyanese people judge for themselves who is hypocritical, who practices anti-working class politics, who supports neo-liberal economics, who should be the last persons to speak on the politics of morality and decency. Sharma kept telling me that he doesn’t want to reply, and I kept insisting to him that it was his obligation as a minister of government to so do.”
People in and out of Guyana read what well-placed persons in the society write in the newspapers. If you do not clarify and eradicate the distortions, malice, fictions, propaganda, fake news contained in those emanations, they are registered in people’s minds and are accepted as truths and facts.
Perhaps the perfect example was the description of me as the chief instigator behind the UG unions’ confrontation with the then Vice Chancellor, Ivelaw Griffith. This statement was published by a certain trade unionist in both the Kaieteur News and the Stabroek News. Nothing could have been further from the truth.
I replied to say that I haven’t met or spoken with many of the leaders in the trade unions, none of whom I can say I have a friendship with. Both unions wrote a no-nonsense denunciation of that description. Had they not done so, it would have engendered feelings in many UG employees that I am the unions’ puppet master. If believed by UG staff members, it could have affected their support for the unions.
A letter in the newspapers by attorney Andrew Pollard takes umbrage at what Ralph Ramkarran wrote – the CCJ failed Guyana by not ordering a date for election. Since then, many have replied to reject the contention of Pollard, and they have done so with a plausible delineation of facts. This columnist rejects the Pollard thesis.
A judge cannot tell litigants that they must observe the constitution. A judge has the power to issue specific orders shaping their conduct in relation to respect for the constitution. The CCJ, after accepting that a valid no-confidence motion (NCM) was passed, had every right and obligation to declare an order for the holding of election three months after the NCM.
Judges the world over make orders all the time in relation to millions of contentions. The CCJ should have compelled the political leadership of the government to hold election within a specific time span. Mr. Pollard is wrong. Those who are lawyers should write to prove he is wrong, and some are doing that.
I come now to a dangerous, nauseating and propagandistic interpretation by a university lecturer on the NCM, in which Charrandass, the constitution and the laws of Guyana are treated with appalling disdain.
A quote from the publication is in order; “In the minds of many Guyanese, their democratic right was wantonly violated by the treachery of one man, Charrandass Persaud. The results of the 2015 election, with the defeat of the PPP after 23 years, clearly demonstrated where the desire and will of the majority of the people resided. So, for many Guyanese, the NCM is not a matter of legalities only. It is a matter of democratic acceptability and legitimacy. And the 2018 NCM lacks those qualities outright.”
First, the constitution allows for an NCM. Secondly, one Member of Parliament decided to vote against his government, a right enshrined by the constitution. Those who favour the government he voted against will use all kinds of scurrilous adjectives to describe his intentions. Those who felt he showed courage will use admirable adjectives for his motives.
Thirdly, one Member of Parliament enables the present government to rule Guyana the past four years, composing all kinds of important Bills and passing four consecutive budgets. The ruling party holds power through the presence of one parliamentarian in a situation of 33 versus 32.
Fourthly, that configuration of 33 versus 32 was brought about by just one vote, let me repeat, just one ballot difference between the PPP and APNU+AFC. APNU+AFC has 33 parliamentarians against 32 for the PPP, because the difference for the regional seat in Region 8 was a single vote. Charrandass toppled a government that legally won an election by less than 5,000 votes. Maybe it has no moral right to govern.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)