Just over a week ago, before President Granger left for Cuba, he pronounced that there would be ‘gridlock’ unless he was given the right to recommend names for inclusion in the list of six persons the Leader of the Opposition would recommend to him from which to choose the Chair of GECOM. In other words, the President was demanding the right to choose his own nominee, perhaps up to then the most astonishing interpretation of the several that the President had made of the Constitution and the CCJ’s decision. Fortunately, with the appointment of Justice Claudette Singh, this is no longer an issue.
But he has otherwise outdone himself. It was reported in SN last Friday July 26 that President Granger told members of civil society on Thursday that “the President cannot tell the Elections Commission when elections must be held neither can the courts.” He also reportedly said that the CCJ issued no coercive orders and therefore the Government is not in contravention of the orders of the court or of the Constitution. Presumably, President Granger delivered the same message to the diplomatic community, the Commonwealth Secretary General and the Caricom Secretary General, to all of whom he spoke. On this mindset, the danger remains that the President could still refuse to dissolve Parliament and fix a date for elections.
The meetings last week between the President and the Leader of the Opposition and the President and the Guyana Elections Commission, did not yield a solution to the impending constitutional crisis that has been dominating the news in recent weeks. Maybe the President and his Attorney General do not believe that a constitutional crisis faces Guyana on March 22. Both have said that according to article 106 of the Constitution, the President holds office until the next President is sworn in. They have purposefully ignored that a no confidence motion was passed in the National Assembly on December 21 and that the new president must be elected in three months, unless that time is extended by a two-third majority.
But this issue has now gone beyond what the constitution says and means. The President’s failure to fix a date for elections is because APNU+AFC intends to remain in office for as long as possible. This is aided by the majority on the Guyana Elections Commission who have voted, and will no doubt continue to support, a new registration exercise. A nation-wide, house-to-house, registration exercise will last into next year. If APNU+AFC’s effort to hold political power succeeds, it will hold elections between May and August next year, when its term of office would have otherwise lawfully ended. Having been caught flat-footed by the no confidence vote, it lost time, which it now seeks to unconstitutionally regain, to put systems in place to win the elections. This clearly is a matter of political life and death and explains the tenacity of its efforts.
The statement issued by the Bar Council of the Guyana Bar Association during last week quoted a dictum of the Chief Justice (ag) in the case of Attorney General of Guyana v Dr. Barton Scotland, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo and Mr. Joseph Harmonas follows: “I hold that the NCM [no confidence motion] was carried as the requisite majority was obtained by a vote of 33:32. The President and the Ministers cannot therefore remain in Government beyond the three months within which elections are required to be held in accordance with art 106(7), unless that time is enlarged by the National Assembly in accordance with the requirements of the said art 106(7).”
President Granger responded at a political rally at Vreed-en-Hoop, that he remains President until a new president is sworn in. The President made no reference to elections. Minister Harmon clarified on Friday afternoon that a date will be fixed for elections when the court cases are completed. He gave no indication that the March 21 deadline for the Government to remain in office will be adhered to. It therefore appears that the Government intends to remain in office, even after March 21, if the cases are not over, which is very likely. After March 21, the Government will be illegal. It will not be entitled to hold office, not entitled to make decisions, not entitled to enter contracts, not entitled to convene the National Assembly, not entitled to pass laws and not entitled to fix a date for elections.
Of all the other Caricom countries, Guyana has enjoyed the closest relations with Trinidad and Tobago. Language, common colonial history, ethnic make-up, common cultural patterns, similar systems of government and laws and long established people to people contact have all come together to keep us close.
During the period of the 1970s to 1980s when Guyana’s economy was flatlining, Trinidad and Tobago continued to supply Guyana with petroleum products on credit. During the 1990s, at the conclusion of the debt forgiveness process under the Paris Club arrangements for Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago forgave Guyana the single largest amount of debt of hundreds of millions of US dollars. This largesse should not be forgotten. Even though it has been almost impossible for Guyanese business people to get permission to invest or for professionals to get jobs or to reside in Trinidad and Tobago, relations between the governments of Guyana and of Trinidad and Tobago have always been cordial.
The total electoral devastation of the Democratic Labour Party(DLP) and the political exit door shown to former Prime Minister, Freundel Stuart, by the Barbados electorate at the elections last Thursday, is an apt and decisive answer to the vicious attack Stuart made on the Caribbean Court of Justice earlier in the week, when referring to the judges derogatorily as ‘politicians in robes.’ It is not unusual for politicians to be peeved by court decisions. Guyanese politicians have expressed ‘concern’ about issues relating to the CCJ on several occasions in the past, including the recent past.
In the UK, the developed country from which we inherited our laws and jurisprudence, and whose precedents are the most influential in the CCJ, judges and courts are regularly criticized, as they should be. But Stuart did not merely criticize; he unjustifiably attacked the CCJ for political bias and undertook to withdraw from the Court. Had he won the elections, Barbados’s withdrawal would have dealt a crushing blow to Caribbean unity and, worse, would have weakenedCaribbean jurisprudence and the rule of law in the region.