Conversation Tree

VENEZUELAN BOMBAST AND CHINESE EVASION

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has unanimously affirmed its decision of 1 December 4 whereby it ruled as follows: “Pending a final decision…Venezuela shall refrain for taking any action which would modify the situation that currently prevails…whereby…Guyana exercises control over that area,” meaning Essequibo. On 1 May, 2025, on application by Guyana, the Court ruled that: “Pending a final decision… Venezuela shall refrain from conducting elections, or preparing to conduct elections in the territory… [over which] Guyana currently exercises control,” again referring to Essequibo. The three judges who opposed the latter order merely argued that it was not necessary because the order of 1 December, 2023, “in our view… fully and clearly addresses the concerns raised by Guyana…” It should be emphasized that, by the above finding, that China, India and Germany, the three dissenting countries, did not rule against Guyana. They merely argued that the Order of 1 December 2023 sufficiently constrains Venezuela in relation to Guyana’s complaints against Venezuela in relation to the latter’s proposed elections.

POPE LEO XIV

Out of a puff of white smoke, an American Pope appeared, to the astonishment of the world, including the United States. It had always been believed that the Catholic Church would not further elevate, and be seen to confer, more influence on the most economically and militarily powerful country in the worldby electing an American Pope. Even the United States had long accepted that it was unlikely that an American would be elected Pope to further enhance its already per-eminent place in the world. The explanation of an American Pope was attempted by Stabroek News, quoting an Italian academic, Professor Massimo Faggioli. He suggested, unconvincingly, that Cardinal Prevost’s past criticism of Donald Trump and JD Vance, coupled with the international upheaval created by the Trump presidency, made the impossible possible. But much deeper currents in the Catholic Church appear to be flowing.

THE SECOND AUTOPSY AND RELATED ISSUES

The family of Adrianna Young, through their lawyer, have asked a second autopsy of the body. From what has been published in the press, there was no reason given for the request. Surely, after an autopsy conducted by three prominent pathologists, the authorities should be given an explanation as to why a second autopsy is required. It could be that the family believes that an error was made, a conclusion was incorrect, a finding was not supported by the investigations, or something else was amiss. Whatever the reason, if the support of the Minister of Health is sought, surely the reason for the request needs to be given. I presume that the permission of the Minister of Health is necessary for an official autopsy, that is, one that is required to be taken into consideration by the Police in their investigations. That could be the reason for the request made to the Minister. It could also be that his permission is required for use of the Ministry’s facilities.

ADRIANNA YOUNGE AND THE VIOLENT EVENTS OF LAST WEEK

Despite interesting news in Guyana last week, it is impossible to ignore the violent events that occured, following what took place at Linden on April 7 and 8 in which Ronaldo Peters and Keon Fogenay were shot and killed by the Police, Peters in the course of being arrested, Fogenay in protest disturbances. Sergeant Philbert Kendall has been charged with the murder of Peters.Last Wednesday Guyanese would have received with deep shock the tragic and brutal murder of three members of the La Cruz family – Waveney La Cruz, 50, the mother, Maline La Cruz, 25, and Sueann La Cruz, 16, the daughters – who were gunned down in broad daylight at their Watakabra home on the Soesdyke-Linden Highway by Ramzan Ramdial, the reputed husband of Maline La Cruz, who had been a victim of sustained domestic abuse of an extremely violent nature by Ramdial.

THE QUESTION OF ELECTORAL REFORM

The question of electoral reform in its broadest sense has attracted attention. A case has been filed seeking an order that an individual can contest elections without having to be on a list of candidates. The law was passed pursuant to the constitutional reform process in 2000/2001 but regulations to effectuate it, though promised, were never made. Currently, to be a candidate,a person must be named on a list of candidates submitted by a political party or group. As regards a presidential candidate, the Constitution provides that he or she must be named as such on the list as the presidential candidate. Should this restriction on the right to run for president remain? A mixed electoral system, as recommended by the Constitution Reform Commission in 1999, was implemented for the 2001 election to provide for constituencies based on the ten Regions. The expressed intention at the time was that this temporary amendment to facilitate 2001 elections, which was due shortly, would be fully addressed more comprehensively after the elections. It never was. There is an extensive campaign for a new voters’ list, which I have supported, and biometric voting by way of fingerprints, which I have opposed.