The best quote I have read among dozens in relation to Father’s Day while preparing for this article is this: “By the time a man realizes that maybe his father was right, he usually has a son who thinks he’s wrong.” At lunch during last week, my elder son, who has a nodding respect for my legal acumen, even though it (the legal acumen) is at best modest, if it has even reached that level, and who consults me frequently, pronounced once again that he has a dim view of politicians. I asked him what about his father. Without missing a beat, he responded: “No exceptions.” On the other hand, my younger son, who has a less positive view of my legal skills, and perhaps he is closer to the mark, but who consults me far more frequently than his elder brother, is interested in politicians, political developments and political history. He maintains a keen interest in the political life of his grandfather.
Father’s Day celebrates and honours fatherhood and emphasizes the importance and influence of fathers in society. The day is generally celebrated by children recognizing the importance of their fathers in their lives by showering him with gifts, their favourite food and much affection. Whether they say so or not, they recognize and reward their fathers for being present in their lives, for ensuring their well-being as children and for guiding them through life. The celebration cannot be achieved without generous assistance from the mothers, particularly where the children are not yet adults and do not have the resources to purchase gifts or mount a celebration. It’s a family affair and reinforces the unity and strength of the family.
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.
Divided societies like Guyana suffer from a phenomenon whereby historic events which, when they occurred, gave rise to allegations of ethnic bias, never seem to go away. The West Indies Federation, which lasted from 1958 to 1962, is one such. It is an historic event which is hardly relevant to contemporary Guyana today. Yet the debate on Jagan’a attitude to the Federation rages, as if the event occurred yesterday, and not more than 50 years ago. It is contextualized to the current ethnic controversies, one of which is to seek to continually paint Jagan as a racist, or at least to allege that he was motivated by ethnic considerations. His role in the establishment of the University of Guyana has become another. But that is for another time.
An editorial in the Stabroek News of December 19, 1986, on ‘Regional Integration’ stated that ‘…others, notably Eusi Kwayana (then Sydney King) attributed Jagan’s opposition [to the Federation] to his unwillingness to be swamped in a predominantly African grouping. C.L.R. James is also reported to have made a similar assertion. In response to the Stabroek News editorial, Jagan replied as follows:
Shanique Myrie is a Jamaican national who was detained at the Grantley Adams Airport in Barbados upon arrival on March 14, 2011 and deported the following day to Jamaica. She alleged that she was subjected to a humiliating body cavity search in insanitary conditions. Ms. Myrie instituted legal proceedings at the Caribbean Court of Justice in its original jurisdiction on January 12, 2012. She claimed that her right of entry without harassment under Article 45 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (“Revised Treaty”) and a 2007 Decision of the Conference of Heads of Government (“Conference Decision”) was violated. Ms. Myrie also claimed that she was discriminated against on the ground of her nationality in violation of Articles 7 and 8 of the Revised Treaty. The Jamaican Government appeared to have put its weight and resources into the case on Ms. Myrie’s behalf.
Barbados denied all of the allegations and claimed that Ms. Myrie was rightfully refused entry because she was untruthful about the identity of her Barbadian host. Barbados also argued that the 2007 Conference Decision did not create for Ms. Myrie a legal right but that if it did, it was not an absolute right and could not be judicially reviewed. Having satisfied itself that it had jurisdiction the Court proceeded to take evidence in sittings in Jamaica and Barbados. Submissions were made at its seat in Trinidad and Tobago.