GENERAL and regional elections were held in Guyana on December 15, 1997. The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) won 29 out of 53 seats, the People’s National Congress (PNC) garnered 22 seats, and The United Force (TUF) and the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) acquired one seat apiece; voter turnout was 88.4%.

Following the December 15, 1997 elections, the opposition protested with vigour through the streets, citing numerous incidents of wanton fraud and obvious rigging. These protests were so massive and impactful, that the international and regional communities took notice and both parties were brought to the negotiating table. These talks resulted in the Saint Lucia statement, which was followed by the Herdmanston Accord. A key part of the Herdmanston Accord was an agreement to cut the term of the PPP/C led government’s tenure. This was never respected by the governing side.

Added to this, one Ester Perreira filed a petition on the 25th February, 1998, under Articles 60, 162 and 163 of the constitution, the Representation of the People Act Cap. 1:03 and the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act Cap. 1:04, claiming the following in simple terms:
(i) the elections were not free, fair and valid and
(ii) the results were affected.
At the end of this case, the learned trial judge gave her 77-page judgment on the 15th of January, 2001 and made further oral orders on the 26th January, 2001. Madam Claudette Singh ‘vitiated’ the 1997 General and Regional Elections and plunged Guyana into uncharted constitutional waters. As a consequence of this landmark ruling, it was safely concluded that the PPP/C led government between 1997 and 2001 was not based on the verified will of the people. Further, there was massive uncertainty if such a government could continue to exercise power with these manifestations, the worst constitutional crisis since our independence. It is worthy to note, prior to the commencement and conclusion of this case, that the PPP candidate Mrs. Janet Jagan, threw over her shoulder, a writ that was intended to stop her being sworn in as the next President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana. This attempt to impose the authority of the court was made futile due to the fact that Mrs. Jagan was in the process of being sworn in at a secret ceremony. Uncertainties reigned supreme in every crevice of Guyana’s constitutional existence.

Following the announcement of this judgment, all and sundry in Guyana’s legal and political sphere, expressed rhetoric that confirmed we had experienced the worst case of legal uncertainty since independence. The head of the Guyana Elections Commission, jurist, Doodnauth Singh, S.C stated; “This is unprecedented in that I have never heard in the Commonwealth of a judge declaring an entire national election as null and void. Usually, they do so in a region or constituency, but not in a national election. This is unprecedented and has serious implications for the country.” Desmond Hoyte, Leader of the Opposition declared, ‘We [are] in a constitutional crisis.’ This judgment by the learned jurist in ‘Esther Perreira v the State’ set a precedence of juridical ambiguity that cannot be easily rivalled in this polity. Despite this ominous reality, President Bharrat Jagdeo declared with stately lack of contrition, ‘It is business as usual.’

During this period of claimed illegality of the government and the Cabinet, there were several national budgets and numerous Cabinet decisions and projects executed at the level of the state. These decisions did not come under any review; they were covered under the doctrine of necessity. This is basic in politics and law, there must be a government.

Based on the aforementioned in relation to the no-confidence motion, it is safe to conclude the following: this is not our worst constitutional encounter; we have had worst experiences and every time this has occurred, the government of the day always remained in place to look after the welfare of the people and above all, there were inevitable negotiations that produced peaceful outcomes.