THESE are interesting times in the political life of this country. It is a phase in its political history that has assumed what can be described as a revealing brand of the kind of morality that constitutes our make up as a people, as a nation, and how we truly engage the national milieu, when confronted by challenges.

But examining the background dynamics with the advent of oil, and the many vested interests that are salivating at the prospective huge financial windfall, reason and honesty have fled, certainly through the window only to be replaced by a deliberate self–subversion.
Not only did the No-Confidence Motion vote (NCM) of December 21 mark a significant watershed in Guyana’s parliamentary politics, but it also introduced and revealed a dimension in the landscape of its traditional adversarial politics.

It is known that if a citizen is unsuccessful in a matter in a lower court, he or she has the right of approaching a higher court for reprieve. It is an advice that some of the lawyers who today are critical of the government, are aware of, and would have similarly advised their clients. So what was the difference this time? Absolutely none, except that the NCM was the centrepiece of the larger plot to remove the government by any and all means, and that regardless of the known right/entitlement of the government to appeal – this was now being disavowed for politically expedient ends.

In fact, it would seem that there was a pervasive environment of convenient amnesia, in not recalling this immediate aspect of law–the right of appeal–although the government had signalled its intention to seek redress at the High Court. It was a right to which, as an organ of state, the government was entitled, and exercised in the same manner as any citizen. In fact, it is here recalled, that this intention to challenge, even progressing to the final stage of the CCJ, had been clearly expressed at the first meeting in 2019, between President Granger and the leader of the parliamentary opposition. It was, therefore, known to the latter. Ironically, it was the same measure to which Bharrat Jagdeo and party employed, after the government’s appeal had been upheld at the Court of Appeal, and which the PPP/C challenged at the CCJ. And there was also the government’s recourse to the CCJ, in the matter of the Third Term Appeal, which it eventually won.

And so, the question must be asked– how could the government have been accused of being “authoritarian’’ and “illegal”, when all that it did was to have availed itself of due process that is the sine qua non of natural justice?

In fact, it is conveniently forgotten that the Appeal Court’s decision had fully, at that material time, restored the legitimacy of the president’s government, a fact thereafter underlined by the Speaker of the House, Dr. Barton Scotland. It must be made clear that President Granger never disagreed with the ruling of the CCJ, that the NCM of December 21 had been properly carried. In fact, he, on being informed of the court’s decision, immediately informed the nation of the government’s acceptance, and further followed the Court’s advice on the need for consensus between the parties in this constitutional matter, as well as awaiting the Consequential Orders, which he has accepted, even signaling his and government’s intention, before such final orders were given.

Perhaps, if those who now seek to level the dangerous accusations against the President of “being in breach of the Constitution”, which means disrespecting the Rule of Law, had not been intoxicated with political opportunism, with the intention to whip up anti-government sentiments, they would have known that Article 106(6), although it speaks of “the resignation of the President and cabinet if defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members…” cannot be read and interpreted in isolation of Article 106(7), which allows for continuity until a new government is elected, before the president resigns.
And if, as one media house so believed, that such period means a stand-still of the affairs of state, then it can only mean an invitation to anarchy. No state, not even the most advanced in its social architecture, can function without an authority and a continuation of vital services. At least, not the kind of country which the APNU+AFC coalition would have inherited from the former PPP/C regime, with its multiplicity of serious socio-challenges. No government that takes its responsibility as serious as the current administration, will abdicate its sworn responsibility of governance. It would seem from all appearances that this very media house that has levelled such an unfounded allegation against the President and government, has forgotten that the administration has accepted its “interim’’ status and even offering ‘’to consult with the opposition on matters which require the agreement of both sides’’.

Surely, this cannot be a President who is not observing the current status of his government, as so erroneously contended; nor is compounding “his transgression’’, because of his “not demitting office’’, when Article 106(7) provides authority for him and cabinet to continue, even in an “interim state’’, as alluded above.

It is unfortunate that there is a political convenience that brazenly emanates from those very voices making such accusations against the person of the President and his cabinet. And rather than continue to be on a political bandwagon that is on a journey, attempting to create the electoral crime of a corrupt National List of Electors, which portents can only cause a serious national collision between government and citizens, this media house should begin to caution and warn its political horse of such grave dangers that can be consequent of its naked attempt of national political dishonesty.

The fact that Guyana, despite the deliberate and orchestrated attempts to incite a social rebellion, which has failed miserably, has remained peaceful even through these testing times, is because of a President and government that have followed the law, as any good citizen should, and continue to do so in the name of good governance, and for country.