There is no ambiguity in the Statutory Declaration Form 3

Jan 18, 2020 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,

There is no ambiguity in the Statutory Declaration Form 3 (Representation of the People’s Act).
It states:
I, (FULL NAME BLOCK CAPITAL) of (ADDRESS) having been nominated in the list of candidates for the (NAME OF PARTY) party for election as a Member of the National Assembly at the General Elections to be held on 2nd day of March 2020.
Do Solemnly and Sincerely Declare:
(i) That I consent to the inclusion of my name in the said List of Candidates.
(ii) That I am aware of the provisions of articles 53 and 155 of the Constitution with respect to the qualifications for election as a Member of the National Assembly.
(iii) That I may, consistently with such provisions be elected as a Member of the National Assembly at the election for which I have been nominated as aforesaid.
I make this declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and according to the Statutory Declaration Act.
This form is signed and declared in front of a Justice of the Peace/Commissioner of Oaths, it is governed by the Statutory Declarations Act Cap.5.09.
Two Presidential hopefuls, Lennox Shuman and Vishnu Bandu knowingly made false declarations; they have broken the laws of Guyana and must be charged by the police. There is no ambiguity here: Cap.5.09 (4) Making false declaration (4) Everyone who makes a declaration according to this act containing any statement false in fact, which he knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and be liable to imprisonment for one year. This requires no gloss to comprehend.
Editor, we have endured a traumatic year-long delay as our judicial system was fully utilized to provide a detailed clarification of the provisions of articles 53 and 155 of the Constitution with respect to the qualifications for election as a Member of the National Assembly. Why then would two persons feel comfortable making these false declarations? Have we moved that far away from a society that adheres to the rule of law, that impunity is the order of the day? I think not; and forthright action now may well stop further rot.
I believe it has become all too easy to dupe unsuspecting Guyanese in the Diaspora into financing political campaigns. Both Shuman and Bandu have raised funds in North America, not only should they face the full brunt of the Law in Guyana but they should be prosecuted under any law that prohibits taking money under pretense in those jurisdictions; it is fraud to pretend that you are eligible to be a presidential candidate when clearly ineligible. Guyana has become too easy a place for remigrants to return with claims of overseas success, at least Bandu shows some assets to bolster his claim, Shuman, like another famous remigrant who pontificated astride a moped while claiming to be a ‘Wall street financial analyst’ until he got a government job, comes with his two hands swinging and very open to offers.
Badal’s light-bulb brigade of short-change artists, they too have lost a prominent candidate to a false declaration, PM hopeful, Nigel Hinds, who at least had the decency to bow out, ostensibly for health reasons. If Shuman fails to find favour with the bright-bulbs, he may consider his true home is under Granger’s ‘big benab’ where his justice party of eight members outnumbers Scott’s unknown entity by six. It is a veritable haven for some; but first, that little matter engaging the attention of the Guyana Police Force.

Respectfully,
Robin Singh

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News