— contends Attorney Maxwell Edwards

DISMANTLING the notion that the Government becomes illegal after Thursday March 21, Attorney-at-Law, Maxwell Edwards, said there is no express wording in the Constitution which provides that the Government will be “illegal” nor has the Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire indicated that it will be.

Edwards, a former magistrate, at the time was responding to contentions by Attorney-at-Law Ralph Ramkarran S.C. that the Government becomes illegal if there is no election or extension to the three-month deadline by March 21, 2019, as required, following a No-Confidence Motion.

In maintaining that the Government remains legitimate, Edwards said, “Even the most ardent and gullible supporter of the Opposition must ask Mr Ramkarran this question: if the APNU+AFC government will be ‘illegal’, who will be the legal government?”

He said politicians like Ramkarran would use the word “illegal” to inflame the current situation but the real question is whether the Government will be constitutional or unconstitutional, noting that the issue brings into sharp focus the intricacies of the Constitution. For him, the Government remains constitutional on the basis that it has been guaranteed a five-year-term in office. He believes that the Article 106 (6) and Article (106) (7) contradict Article 70 (3) of the Constitution.

“First and foremost, the 7th Parliament which purported to introduce No- Confidence motion regime into the Constitution in 2000, some 20 years after the Constitution had come into force on 6th October, 1980, could not, and is not permitted by the Constitution, to use a less valuable or significant provision or article of the Constitution to interfere with rights and duties created by the framers or makers of the Constitution by, and in, provisions or articles that are much more valuable.

“Nor could the 7th Parliament by such less valuable article foist on a President, duties or limitations different from those provided by the more, or most, valuable articles,” Edwards argued in a letter to the editor.

Edwards, who is among attorneys representing the Government in the No-Confidence Motion cases, submitted that a referendum would be needed to reduce the powers, and not the 65 Members of the National Assembly.

“The 7th Parliament could not, by votes alone in the National Assembly, (even all 65) and the President’s assent, and without also a referendum, purport to subvert, impair, dilute or water down the rights or powers conferred or invested in the Presidency under Articles 89 and 99,” he said while emphasising that the No-Confidence Motion is not a referendum.

THINGS REMAIN
Contrary to the contentions of Ramkarran and the Opposition, come Friday, President David Granger will remain President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Edwards said. “No amount of sterile, inflammatory, politically expedient argumentation about ‘illegal’ can change that,” he made clear.

Brynmor T.I Pollard, S.C., O.R also reminded Ramkarran of the powers vested in the President. Pollard, in a letter to the editor in the Stabroek News, sought to jog the memory of the former Speaker, now politician. In that letter, Pollard took Ramkarran to 2001 when he presented former President Janet Jagan in the elections petition case heard, and decided upon by Justice Claudette Singh.

Justice Singh had vitiated the 1997 elections but made it clear that she did not have the power to ask the President to step down.

“Mr. Ramkarran as faced with a submission by opposing Counsel that as the then Bharrat Jagdeo Government had acceded to office by an unlawful election, it was ipso facto unlawful, and therefore ought to demit office.

“Mr Ramkarran had argued in the Court a submission that Her Honour had no authority to order the Government to demit office,” Pollard said.

He said from the end result of the case and orders that came with it, Pollard submitted that Ramkarran must have found favour with Justice Singh since she concluded that she had no authority to ask the then President to demit office.

Eusi Kwayana, a well-established Guyanese politician, also made reference to the Justice Singh’s decisions back in 2001. Kwayana said it is the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) that is constitutionally mandated to hold elections, and only GECOM could determine its state of readiness.

Given the current circumstance, GECOM, he suggested, should turn to the court for an extension on the basis that it is unable to hold elections.

“I wish to argue, therefore, that if there is a disability on the part of the Elections Commission to comply with constitutionally-valid requirements, the Commission itself, as a legal person, should approach the appropriate court in its own name with a result for a declaration,” he proposed. According to Kwayana, though his recommendation may or may not be flawed, it is in an attempt to avoid the country from returning to a past of painful experiences. GECOM on Tuesday disclosed that it would be in a position to hold credible elections by November, 2019.