Genuine concern does not confer authority

Sep 30, 2024 Peeping Tom

Kaieteur News – Few things in government are more fraught with peril than the well-intentioned intervention of a high-ranking official acting beyond the bounds of his authority. It is one thing to possess genuine concern over a matter that touches on the public good; it is quite another to act without clear legal or constitutional backing.

The recent intervention by the Vice President into the resignation of the administrator of the Burrowes School of Art raises precisely these questions. Was the Vice President acting out of a sense of duty, or was this a case of authority being overextended, if not misapplied?

The drama began with an alleged racial slur—a private altercation between the administrator of the Burrowes School of Art and a private citizen. On its face, this was a personal dispute, best addressed through private channels or, at most, through administrative mechanisms within the government. Yet, what should have remained a matter between private citizens soon escalated into a public spectacle. The administrator reportedly was summoned to the office of a Minister, and before long, the Vice President himself entered the fray.

While one might argue that the Vice President had a legitimate interest in ensuring that public employees are not unjustly treated, the larger question remains: what was his legal standing to do so? It is one thing for a concerned official to offer guidance or counsel; it is quite another to involve oneself in a matter far removed from one’s own portfolio.

The Vice President is tasked with overseeing natural resources, finance, and environmental matters. These are portfolios, by any reasonable interpretation, have little to do with the management of an art school.

The Vice President’s reported involvement—calling the administrator to encourage him to reconsider his resignation—raises serious questions. Why was it necessary for the Vice President to intervene in this matter at all? Were there no proper channels through which such concerns could be addressed? The permanent secretary, after all, is the highest-ranking civil servant in a ministry and should have been the one to handle this situation. By intervening, the Vice President not only bypassed those channels but also risked politicizing what should have remained a private matter.

But the situation becomes even more perplexing when one considers reports that the Vice President “spoke strongly” to, or even “scolded,” the Minister in question. If this is true, it needs to be asked what authority does the Vice President have to rebuke a fellow Minister? As a minister himself, albeit one with the title of Vice President, he remains a peer among equals. Unless specifically instructed by the President, he has no standing to issue commands or criticisms to his colleagues.

In a functioning democracy, ministers are accountable to the President, not to each other. The division of powers and responsibilities within the executive branch is a crucial safeguard against overreach. Ministers have defined portfolios, and while collaboration is often necessary, overstepping those boundaries is a slippery slope toward a concentration of power. The Vice President may oversee critical sectors, but this does not give him carte blanche to involve himself in matters beyond his purview.

Even if the Vice President acted with the best of intentions, the issue at hand is one of authority and process. If the President indeed delegated such power to the Vice President, then this raises additional concerns about the distribution of power within the executive. Has the President conferred upon the Vice President a quasi-presidential role, one that allows him to intervene in ministries not under his direct oversight? And if so, is this not a subversion of the very structure of government?

The more pressing concern is what happens if such interventions go unchecked. If the Vice President can unilaterally decide to step into matters far removed from his portfolio, what prevents other ministers from doing the same? What then becomes of the principle of ministerial accountability? Without clear boundaries, the risk is that governance becomes a free-for-all, with each official asserting their authority wherever they see fit, regardless of their constitutional remit.

This incident brings into sharp relief a deeper issue within the government. It is not merely about the specifics of the Burrowes School of Art or the resignation of its administrator, but rather about how power is wielded and distributed. The Vice President may have believed that his intervention was necessary, perhaps even noble, but the fact remains that he overstepped his bounds. He inserted himself into a matter that could and should have been resolved through proper administrative channels, without the need for high-level political involvement.

Even more concerning is the precedent this sets. If the Vice President can involve himself in matters unrelated to his portfolio, and if it is true that he did reprimand a fellow Minister, what does this say about the balance of power within the government?.

To be sure, the Vice President may have had genuine concerns—perhaps he feared that the resignation of the administrator needed to be reversed in the interest of fairness and justice. But genuine concern does not confer authority. Even in cases where an official feels morally justified, the exercise of power must always be grounded in clear legal or constitutional authority. Anything less risks undermining the principles of democratic governance.

At the heart of this controversy is a question that demands an answer: By what authority did the Vice President intervene? And if he had no such authority, why did he feel empowered to act as he did? These are not trivial matters. They go to the core of how power is exercised within the state. The Vice President’s actions in this case, whether well-intentioned or not, raise more questions than they answer.

• Administrator, Burrowes School, justified, The Vice President’s, Vice Presiden, Vice President