Guyana’s constitution upheld

THERE was never a doubt that the Caribbean Court of Justice(CCJ) ever intended to insert itself in the political affairs of the sovereign state, the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, whether by design, its own unintended efforts, or through the wily plans of others.
It was evident, too, that the distinguished court understood the dynamics of the Guyana political milieu and of the treacherous contrivances that would have caused the particular judicial issues that arose out of the former, to be its pre-occupation, and which it had been asked to decide.

It constituted a challenge of understanding that its sole remit had to be specially confined to that of the judicial question, ensuring adherence to the Rule of Law; while at the same time realising the extant external challenges to this recognizance, which must be solved through consensus, by only the nation’s principal political actors.

One should perhaps be reminded of its decision to request both parties to arrive at consensus before shaping its eventual Consequential Orders. This meant ensuring that it placed itself at a very safe protective distance, away from the deliberate attempts by those who had sought to inveigle it into the domain of the inner sanctum of the nation’s political affairs, almost demanding that its orders be coercive.

Friday’s decision from the Court issuing the Consequential Orders was a clear demonstration that the Court understood its judicial functions in an unambiguous manner and stuck to the letter and spirit of that which is the sin qua non of every proper, independent Judiciary.

At best, its Consequential Orders upheld our constitution, for it explicitly recognised the sole authority of the President for deciding on a date for national and regional elections, the dissolution of parliament, and the constitutional fact of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), being the sole constitutional adviser on the preparations and readiness for the critical aspect of national democracy. The orders have therefore upheld the sanctity of the national constitution.

But one must understand the nature of these consequential orders, in that they were not coercive, as the Leader of the PPP/C Opposition had hoped them to be, even going to the very extreme of what were clearly demands, through his counsel, in seeking to bully a September election date, and the time period for appointment of a chairperson to GECOM.
The Court’s obvious rejection to these requests, presumptuous in every way, must serve as a shameful rebuke to a political leader whose ploy was clearly of a convenient nature, and a display of both political convenience and grandstanding, designed to sustain the expectations of his party supporters. But at best, it also cruelly exposed the well-known, unabated hypocritical brand of the PPP/C leader, who, as a former president, is well aware that those orders which he asked for, and did not receive, could not have been conceivably been granted by any court, since it would have constituted a grave case of judicial intrusion or overreach. It was political dishonesty in all its conception.

Thus, we must ask how could “Jubilant Jagdeo lauds forceful CCJ ruling”, which cannot be described as such, as they are not coercive – a view expressed by one of his counsel, expressing his disappointment that the court’s ruling fell short of his expectations; and which contradicts his client, Jagdeo. Jagdeo, by saying that “In its ruling, [the CCJ] preserves something essential in a democratic society … the separation of powers. A cardinal principle of modern democracy is that the judiciary and the executive have certain powers that are separate from each other and that there must not be interference [of] one branch into the other”. This constitutes, yet again, another naked example of Jagdeo’s hypocrisy, since his very demands of the CCJ contradicts his quote. He was simply asking the CCJ to make political decisions for Guyana.

It does not need a political analyst to understand, that given the CCJ’s earlier advice, that consensus must be the route towards arriving at this important choice for the next appointment of a GECOM chairperson. It means rising above selfish and dangerous, personal and petty political ambitions, and devoting oneself to country and people. It is a task which the President has taken the expeditious responsibility to lead as Executive, as he reminded the nation, in his recent address to the nation. It is a call, which he has made to Jagdeo, which equally the leader of the opposition must answer since his office has enshrined constitutional responsibilities, which he is duty-bound to carry out.

We do not interpret the CCJ’s orders as a “victory” for any section of this nation, as exulted by Jagdeo. Instead, we view the Court’s admonition of a consensual approach, as opening the door for the broader opportunity of laying the groundwork for a pathway towards further dialogue for the coveted goal of national unity. It is a signpost that inevitably comes into national view, at moments such as these in our history. It should be ongoing, irrespective as to the national political environment, as President Granger recognised when he came to the presidency in 2015, by inviting the leader of the opposition to unity exploration talks. But it is an endeavour that always must be, given the fractious nature of our politics.

For Jagdeo, who now speaks of “victory’’ on a purely partisan basis, must be reminded that the real victory will be when all Guyana can sit around the national table, in peace and harmony, with an unfettered understanding, participating in an equal manner in the feast of the national patrimony. That moment, and onwards, will be our real victory.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.