IT is this writer’s view that governments are better off and genuinely legitimate when they respect rules and their constitutions. However, it is worthy to note that the letter of the constitution cannot always manifest in its exact form due to extenuating circumstances.

Where such a situation obtains, it is the moral responsibility of the government to always act in the public good and maintain public order. In pursuance of that interest, the spirit of the constitution may have to be its central focus. This is the basis and the origins for the arguments proffered for the doctrine of necessity and the argument that there always has to be a government in place, regardless of circumstances. The public debate on the no-confidence motion deserves some information on these phenomena.

It was the mediaeval Jurist Henry De Bracton, who first notably advanced the relevance of this doctrine in the 13th Century. This Oxford student and holder of a doctor’s degree in civil and canon law, shocked constitutionalists when he submitted: ‘That which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity; the principle that, in a situation of emergency or exigent circumstance, a state may legitimately act in ways that would normally be illegal.’ This disputation was echoed by the likes of the English Jurist, Judge and Tory politician, William Blackstone.

Perhaps, a few examples can efficiently elucidate the thrust of this documentation. In 1985, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Grenada presided over a case in which the litigants argued that the charges brought were based on an illegal ‘People’s Law’ that was introduced by an illegal revolutionary government. This was litigated in the context where the court was trying, for murder, persons who had conducted a coup against former leader Maurice Bishop. The chief justice ruled the doctrine of necessity validated all laws on the basis of necessity. The President of Nigeria in 2010, Umaru YarAdua, once left his country for medical treatment in Saudi Arabia for 78 days. Due to his frail condition, he was unable to formally empower the vice-president to perform the functions as stipulated by Section 145 of Nigeria’s constitution.

On February 9th, 2010, the Nigerian National Assembly passed a resolution making Vice-President Goodluck Johnathan the Acting President and Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces; no provision in the constitution of Nigeria allowed this arrangement. The Senate President, David Mark, asserted that necessity made the resolution legal. All the above were made legal by virtue of the government’s necessity.

There must be a government. There are examples that demonstrate the chaos and anarchy that is unceremoniously invited when there is a vacuum in political leadership. Somalia had no government for 15 years, during that period, the country was ripped apart beyond repair. In 2010, Iraq was without a government and extremists and the dark forces of anarchy almost destroyed that nation. In the case of Germany in times of no government, Ministers carry on as ‘Acting Ministers’ to ensure there is public order and policy implementation.

In his speech to the British House of Commons on November 18, 1783, William Pitt stated, ‘Necessity is the plea of Tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.’ This dismissal of the necessity argument in the context of government must never go unchallenged. There are those who argue that the doctrine of necessity is a shield and not a sword. Some constitutionalists would demand adherence to the constitution. They allude to the fear of autocrats using the necessity argument to abuse power. This fear is real, but in cases where the government’s intentions are honourable, the welfare of the people is the supreme law.

In conclusion, Guyana is on the precipice of oil wealth and faces an existential geopolitical threat from its neighbourhood. The Venezuelan crisis and the nascent oil and gas economy, present the strongest case for the necessity of which our constitution empowers the President to be so guided if needed.