Dear Editor
WITH the Caribbean Court of Justice announcing the scheduling of commencement of arguments in the PPP/C’s appeal against the Guyana Court of Appeal majority verdict that overturned the High Court ruling on the no- confidence motion vote, the stage is now set for when this seminal constitutional matter will be heard and decided.

However, one must take note as to the power-crazed elements, of course led by Bharrat Jagdeo, who had taken to calling on the Caribbean Court of Justice(CCJ), to urgently adjudicate their appeal. It would seem that as far as they are concerned, this matter is about them–and only about them–and not about the constitutional direction and wider political interest of Guyana.

It had been definably a tactic of trying to influence the CCJ into a hurried date, deceptively seeking to give the dishonest and misleading perception that Guyana is in crisis, in which the social peace is threatened, which it is not, that the current situation had been creating an environment of uncertainty throughout the country, which is another foul lie.

The tone that reeks of the traditional Jagdeo bully stamp even included his declaration that his party would not be returning to the National Assembly, until the court settles the matter. In fact, one of the plotters in this crooked attempt to remove the government, the Private Sector Commission (PSC), was another of the voices that spoke about the need for an ‘’early settlement’’ of the matter brought before the Caribbean Court of Justice.

Editor, Jagdeo and his cohorts must understand that the CCJ’s function is about serving the jurisdiction of the Caribbean and the cause of justice and not special interests — political or otherwise. Therefore, for all the statements from Jagdeo et al, designed to create an air of sensationalism would not, in my humble opinion, influenced the court in its responsibility as to how and when to proceed on such matters.

But now that the date of May 8 has been scheduled for the appeal to commence, one must examine Jagdeo’s boycotting which his and fellow party’s MPs absence really is, of the Assembly. He has no legal basis– or otherwise– for doing so, especially since the Court of Appeal ruling has restored the status quo. Instead, such action is not only a constitutional illegality, but can be clearly seen as a protest against the appellate court’s decision that overturned the High Court’s decision, which had been given in his party’s favour.

However, Jagdeo must be reminded that he holds a constitutional office which demands that he fulfil such a responsibility by being in the House as a representative of his constituents. He is receiving taxpayers’ money as salary, and other emoluments which are attached to being leader of the parliamentary opposition. It would be fair that he and his MPs not receive salaries for the period of absence from national duty.

Regards
Earl Hamilton