The phrase that headlines this article, “The Sanctity of Contract,” has been widely used for the last few years by the Government in defence against calls for the renegotiation on the contract between ExxonMobil and the Government of Guyana. The Government relies on the phrase to advance the proposition that one party to a contract that seeks to renegotiate it violates its sanctity. The public would, however, consider that the phrase’s real meaning is that the terms of a contract ought not to be unilaterally violated by one party to it. Some contracts carry a moral dimension so that their willful violation leaves a stain of dishonour and disrepute on the character of the violator. Yes, I’m talking about the shameless Dr. Asha Kissoon.
I have written about this before, so I ask readers to bear with me. Just prior to the last elections, three newly formed political parties, the Liberty and Justice Party (LJP), A New and United Guyana (ANUG) and The New Movement (TNM), utilizing the provisions of the Representation of People Act (ROPA), established a “joinder” group. Under ROPA, the “joinder” parties would be entitled to combine their votes but only for purpose of the distribution of seats. The election results of 2020 showed that, individually, the three parties would not have attained any seats. Together, however, as “joinder” parties, they qualified for one seat.
Under the formula that had been agreed among the parties, they decided to share the one seat among themselves, with LJP serving first and ANUG serving second as the parties earning the first and second highest votes of 2000 plus. TNM, having earned 500 plus, requested to serve in the National Assembly after the LJP on the ground that early elections would severely limit its time in the National Assembly, or give it no time at all. ANUG agreed and Dr. Asha Kissoon of the TNM took the place of Lenox Shuman. At the end of her time, six months, she refused to resign. She served the full remaining period of approximately three years, thereby depriving ANUG of its right to a seat in the National Assembly.
Dr. Asha Kissoon has now declared her support of the PPP/C and the Government. In a long statement in the National Assembly on 20 May, Dr. Kissoon said in part: “As Leader of The New Movement and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, my guiding principle has always been to put Guyana and its people first. I entered politics with the belief that leadership must be purposeful, people-centered, and rooted in accountability.” I regret that I cannot enlighten readers as to whether or not the use of the words “principle,” “leadership” and “accountability” by Dr. Kissoon caused her to choke as she uttered them.
By her brazen violation of the “joinder” contract, Dr. Kissoon has morally disqualified herself from engaging in politics. Her action has indelibly imprinted a political taint on her character, so disgraceful that it cannot be erased. She has disentitled herself from politically representing any Guyanese because she has violated the trust of all Guyanese electors. Dr. Kissoon is seen as a person who cannot be relied upon to observe political principle, to adhere to a solemn political obligation and to uphold the sanctity of contract. She has condemned herself as an untouchable political pariah.
What will Dr. Kissoon say to the public about political integrity and morality when she is on the campaign trail having regard to her deceitful retention of a parliamentary seat to which she was not entitled? And what positive traits as a politician will her political sponsors boast that she possesses. And what has she brought to the PPP – “principle,” “leadership” and “accountability?” Dr. Kissoon could have resigned her seat and still later endorse the PPP/C, but then she would not have been able to deprive ANUG from holding it. Not more than two or three leaders of the PPP who lived through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s when PPP leaders “crossed the floor” and joined the PNC are still active today. They remember that these were among the most painful and distressing acts that took place during that era. Now it’s happening to the PNC. That Party fully understands the motivations of those of its members who now declare their support for the PPP. The PNC benefited from “crossing the floor” in the past and know that it has to now live with its members doing the same. The PPP, as the PNC in the past, has welcomed such support. But Dr. Kissoon’s case is a special one. Her conduct is worse than crossing the floor. It is a betrayal of her colleagues. It is a politically vile, dishonest and bankrupt act which has disqualified her from being accepted within polite society or the embrace of any political party, including the PPP/C which, as I remember, held aloft the principles of political integrity as part of its moral code. In its statecraft, the PPP/C has emblazoned across its governmental banner the principle of “sanctity of contract.” Shouldn’t it reject those who egregiously violate this principle? Loyal members have been rejected for far, far, less!