Latest update April 18th, 2024 12:59 AM
Jun 10, 2019 Letters
DEAR EDITOR,
The passing of the no confidence motion in Parliament by the speaker of the house on December 21st was on the grounds of parliamentary jurisprudence. The Speaker at the next sitting stated that by the powers vested in him he could as the speaker rescind the decision but would allow the controversies raised by the besieged government to be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. This has made him appear as the first comedian in what seems like a geometric progression of comedians that followed – holding democracy at ransom.
Parliament is founded under the auspice of article 9 of our constitution. Article 9 states that sovereignty belongs to the people who exercise it through their representatives. In this regard, what is passed in parliament is a direct representation of the will of the people and should not be allowed the latitude of possible change by a few individuals (judges) – individuals who were also allowed the right to contribute to parliament by voting.
While the courts can be called on to make interpretation on the constitution, those interpretations should be used going forward – not to change what has already been passed in parliament. Surely, the Speaker would be aware of the above, yet he indulged in the parody that made our democracy into the laughing stock of the world.
I must commend the CJ for dealing wisely with the matters that was thrown at her. The comedy of errors appeared in the Appeal Court. Not that a different decision by the two judges who could not see 33 as a majority of 65 would have stop the matter from reaching the CCJ – the matters were destined to reach the CCJ.
I am inclined to believe that the two judges would have tried numerous murder cases in their careers and they know the significance of having oddity in the number of jurors (11) in arriving at a conviction or acquittal. For the two to ascertain that 33 is not a majority of 65 sends the laughter reverberating to the core of our education system and the world at large. The irony of it all, is that no one is laughing at these jokes perpetuated in high places by people whom we expect to be the vanguard of our democratic norms and set examples that will exonerate rather than complicate future generations.
But as it seems, the spirit of comedy continues to possess people in high places. Apparently, it has now reached the CCJ. With the pretext of giving the NCM matters an early hearing and having heard all the arguments and summation from both sides on the matters since May 10th. one month after the CCJ is yet to deliver a decision. The public is aghast! They are wondering if the CCJ has joined the band of marching comedians in high places that is prevailing over Guyana.
An article appearing in KN on June 8th state that, “the CCJ in an order granted on Wednesday indicated that the matter will be opened to take new evidence which was recently made available to Attorney General Basil William.”
If this should happen it would set one of the most ludicrous precedent in any court matter anywhere in the world. It would lend credence to the public to anticipate the direction of the decision as another comedy of errors becoming reality.
The new evidence purported to ascertain that Charrandas knew that as a dual citizen he was not supposed to be an MP. Do we need to get a confession from Harmon, Roopnarine, Greenidge Gaskin, Teixeira, Anamayah and Lumumba to prove that they knew they were not supposed to be in parliament too? These MPs voted on the NCM too. Charrandas and the seven other MP’s all signed false declarations about their dual citizen status to be sworn in as MP”s in 2015. These people are all educated adults. If you are going to sign a declaration and you are not sure what you are signing for, you ought to inquire. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for committing a crime! They all knew that they were not supposed to be MP’s when they sign their individual declarations. Nevertheless, the dual citizenship MP’s who voted on the NCM are protected in the written language of article 165 (2) of the constitution which reads: “The Assembly may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership … (even) after any dissolution of Parliament and the presence or participation of any person not entitled to be present or to participate in the proceedings of the Assembly, shall not invalidate those proceedings.” The language is crystal clear here that their participation in the NCM does not invalidate the NCM. Let’s go to a worse, but fair case scenario – nullifying all the dual citizenship MP’s vote. The “NOs” will have Harmon, Greenidge, Roopnarine and Gaskin deducted – the “NO” goes to 28. Deduct, Persaud, Teixeira, Anamayah and Lumumba from the “YESs”- the “YES” goes to 29. The “YESs” still remain a majority.
The dual citizenship MP’s were there because the parties list system wanted them to be there and GECOM allowed it. It was an acceptable constitutional violation by both political parties. I see no point in AG Williams trying to reinstate Charrandas’ awareness of the law, while all the others were aware too, when the matter should have been over at the CCJ. The CCJ seeming willingness to accept what Williams considers as new evidence is mired in ludicrousness. The people continue to watch the comedians display their silverware in high places. Sadly, the audience is not laughing.
Rudolph Singh
JAGDEO ADDING MORE DANGER TO GUYANA AND THE REGION
Apr 18, 2024
SportsMax – West Indies captain Hayley Matthews has been named Wisden’s leading Twenty20 Cricketer for 2023, as she topped all and sundry, including her male counterparts. Alan Gardner looks...Kaieteur News – Compliments of the Ministry of Education, our secondary school children are being treated to a stage... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]