The stunning news, unprecedented in Africa’s history, broke on Friday morning that the Kenyan Supreme Court had overturned the results of the August 8 elections which the incumbent president, Uhuru Kenyatta, 55, had won with 54 percent of the vote. The six-bench Supreme Court ruled four to two in favour of a petition by Raila Odinga, 72, running and losing for the fourth time, with 44 percent of the vote, who claimed that electronic voting results were hacked in favour of Kenyatta. New elections were ordered in 60 days.
Chief Justice David Maraga, in delivering the ruling said: “After considering the evidence, we are satisfied that the elections were not conducted in accordance with the dictates of the Constitution.” The court said that the elections commission committed “illegalities and irregularities…in the transmission of the results,” the details of which will be set out in the written judgment to be delivered in 21 days.
I adopt the sentiments of Lincoln Lewis, who writes frequently on constitutional matters. He said in last Sunday’s Chronicle: “We are facing a very serious situation and what I am about to say is intended to right a ship, veering wildly off course and posing dire implications for the rule of law, the legitimacy of the executive, and protecting the well-being of the society.” Mr. Lewis cited the following instances where the authority of the executive and limits of the President have been exceeded: 1. The termination of leases in the MMA; 2. (Mis)Interpretation of criteria for Gecom chair; 3. The termination of Red House lease; 4. Seeking to possess the property of Clarissa Riehl; 5. Instructions given to the Police Service Commission not to act on a list for promotions. While Mr. Lewis’s did not explicitly say so, his conclusion is that the court rulings suggest that the constitution is being violated.
A strong editorial in the Stabroek News of August 21 did not mince words. Additional violations were cited in extenso:”…the directive issued by Minister of State Joe Harmon on June 26 to the Police Service Commission (PSC) in the name of President Granger for the halting of the police promotions process must be condemned as an attack on constitutionalism….Given President Granger’s flawed reading of the constitutional provisions relating to the appointment of a Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission, his unconscionable delay in acting upon the recommendations of the Judicial Service Commission and the May 2015 attempt by Minister Simona Broomes to issue an instruction to the Public Service Commission, which was later ruled ultra vires by the High Court, a pattern of highly worrying behavior has emerged. It is clear that when it suits the President and the government to ignore constitutional precepts – in this case the vital insulating of service commissions – it is prepared to do so. Two and a half years into its term of office, this tendency is rife with jeopardies to constitutional rule and the rule of law. It also adds to the unpleasant legend of the PNC’s undemocratic rule of the 70s and 80s, the flying of colours of the party over the Guyana Court of Appeal and the entrenching of paramountcy of the party as enshrined in the Sophia Declaration.”
Alexandra Kollontai (1872-1952) was a leading Bolshevik and the earliest champion of women’s rights under the new Soviet government. From an aristocratic background, she was attracted to left wing ideas as a student and in 1899 joined the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, under which name the communists were first organized. Kollontai devoted her energies, in exile and in Russia, to develop strategies for the organization and education of women and their involvement in the struggle against tsarism and capitalism, in unity with and as an equal partner of men. She also sought to liberate women’s sexuality as part of the liberation of women in general and promoted ideas that may appear to be quite acceptable now but which were somewhat advanced for the immediate post-feudal era in Russia (‘sexuality is a human instinct as natural as hunger or thirst’). Although Kollontai encountered much resistance by her male comrades, she nevertheless persisted and earned the support by Lenin. While she was eventually banished to a diplomatic post because of her factional struggle against bureaucracy as a member of ‘The Workers Opposition,’ her ideas heavily influenced the Soviet agenda on women and family issues. It is believed that one of the reasons that she survived the Stalin purges was because of her popularity.
In an article, ‘Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism’ in the New York Times of August 12, by Kirsten R. Ghodsee, a Professor of Russian and East European studies at the University of Pennsylvania, recognition was given to the role of Alexandra Kollontai. The writer said: “After the Bolshevik takeover Vladimir Lenin and Alexandra Kollontai enabled a sexual revolution in the early years of the Soviet Union with Kollontai arguing that love should be freed from economic considerations.” The ideological foundation for women’s equality had been laid by earlier writers such as August Bebel and Frederic Engels. Thus, suffrage was extended to women in 1917, immediately after the revolution and three years before the US. This was followed by the liberalization of divorce laws and freedom being given to women over reproductive rights. Unwanted pregnancies were reduced by extensive sex education.
The public has been gripped over the past few weeks by the evidence which has been emerging from the Commission of Inquiry (‘COI’) into the alleged plot to assassinate President David Granger.
The COI was announced on July 11 and Demerara Waves quoted parts of the Terms of Reference (‘TOR’): “The Commission will review all actions taken by the Guyana Police Force and examine whether there was evidence failure, neglect or omission to thoroughly or properly investigate the intention or plan to assassinate the President and determine whether such failure or omission was intentional…The Commission of Inquiry will also seek to determine whether any person and, in particular, officers of the Guyana Police Force had any information before and after reports were made of the plan to assassinate the President and whether any such officers communicated that information to a superior authority.”
The performance of the British Labour Party in the elections last week has been spectacular. The Party’s spirited and brilliant campaign was focused on its agenda as set out in its Manifesto, “For the Many, Not the Few,” which accurately captured the aspirations of a wide cross-section of the British people, particularly the youth, motivated them and brought back those who had been swayed by the Conservatives and UKIP in the past. The enthusiastic new half a million members of the Labour Party knocked on doors and got out the vote, one of the highest in recent memory.
Jeremy Corbyn’s transformation in three weeks among his own colleagues and many supporters of Labour, from a liability, and among the Conservatives and his own right wing parliamentary colleagues, from the disorganized, incompetent, disheveled bumbler that they painted him as, to the charismatic leader that he is, has been as equally dramatic as the election results. His closest colleagues’ belief in Corbyn never faltered. They knew his potential and chose to project the 68 year-old man, his character and his qualities, before the British people, with confidence that he would effectively market Labour’s Manifesto and attract support. But the projection of his character was not done through advertisements, such as for Prime Minister Theresa May, hailing her as ‘strong and stable’ but who turned out to be ‘weak and wobbly,’ stiff and uncomfortable in interviews, afraid to face her opponents in debate, hidden from the public, and forced to withdraw the ‘dementia tax’ against the sick.