Now that the dust has settled and emotions have subsided, it might be a good time to dispassionately consider the meaning of the Court’s decision in the Isseneru Case which attracted some attention recently.
To grasp its full significance and implications, we need to go back in time.
The Public Procurement Commission(“Commission”) was recommended by the Constitution Reform Commission (“CRC”) in 2000 as a constitutional commission. Its objective was to reduce or prevent corruption in procurement if the growing allegations were to be believed. The charges of general, widespread corruption in other areas had not yet become prominent. The CRC felt that it was necessary to have a constitutional commission so that its provisions would be entrenched and difficult to change. The amendments to the Constitution were made in 2002.
Article 212W of the Constitution provides that the purpose of the Commission is to monitor procurement and the procedure to ensure that the procurement of goods, services and the execution of works are conducted in a fair, equitable, transparent and cost effective manner. Its functions are widespread. They include monitoring and reviewing all procurement systems; procedures of ministerial, regional and national procurement entities and project execution units; monitor performance with respect to adherence of regulations and efficiency in procuring goods and services and execution or works; investigate complaints; investigate irregularities; initiate investigations and more.
Three differing interpretations of the Chief Justice’s ruling in the case of the Attorney General v David Granger and Raphael Trotman have been given. Attorney at Law Basil Williams of APNU said that the Chief Justice upheld the decision of the Speaker by allowing Home Affairs Minister to speak as a Member of the National Assembly but not as Minister of Home Affairs. The Attorney General said that the “gag” order made against Minister Rohee by the Speaker has been removed. The Speaker said that he is appealing the decision because he requires clarification but that in any event he is not bound by the Chief Justice’s ruling. All of these distinguished gentlemen cannot be right. So what really did the Chief Justice say?
Before answering the question some background is necessary.
Had I been the Speaker, this is the ruling I would have given on the motion tabled in the National Assembly to prevent Minister Clement Rohee from speaking. It would have avoided the costly litigation just concluded before the Chief Justice in which he ruled that Rohee has the right to speak as a member of the National Assembly.
“On July 30, 2012, the Assembly passed a resolution, No. 18 of 2012, which stated in part “…..that the National Assembly censures and expresses ‘no confidence’ in the Minister of Home Affairs, Hon. Clement Rohee, M.P., over his inability to discharge his responsibility for public security and calls for the immediate revocation of his appointment as a Minister of the Government and for his dismissal from office.”
Critics are baffled by what is alleged to be the reluctance of the PPP to accept that it is no longer in the majority since the 2011 elections. Their analysis, at its worst, suggests that an arrogant, hungry and driven elite, determined to dominate the reins of office, seek to remain entrenched in power for its own sake, in order to continue to plunder and, not least, to assure protection from prosecution.This analysis is superficial and fails to recognize the deeper realities that motivate the approaches of the PPP to the issues of governance in the new environment and indeed in the pre-2011 dispensation, even if it was then less noticeable.
There are no doubt subjective factors within the Party leadership which influence some policy choices and attitudes, both before and after 2011. These may no doubt have been responsible for the negative features which have developed and which persist. Those are not defended here. But the objective realities of the political history of Guyana since 1953, and its impact on the PPP’s psyche, have profoundly influenced the direction and orientation of its basic approaches, even within the changing class composition of its leadership, which has impacted on some aspects of its policies, including those mentioned above. Only Cheddi Jagan’s transformational ideas occasionally broke through oppressive historical circumstances.