THERE IS mounting suspicion about the PNCR’s ex-parte court injunction against the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC), and political analysts believe the move betrays the spirit of the parliamentary process. “It is rather opportune that the PNCR would try to override the parliamentary process by taking this matter to the court when the largest percentage of stakeholders thought there should be a parliamentary solution to the ERC matter,” one observer said.  
The Office of the President, in a statement, has said: “The public should now know, as the records of the Appointive Committee of Parliament would attest, that the PNCR has exhibited manifest insincerity in their contributions at meetings of the Appointive Committee addressing the matter of the ERC, the latest of which was held on Tuesday May 31, 2011.  At no time, up to and including Tuesday, May 31, 2011(when the injunction was granted), did the opposition PNCR Members of Parliament on the Committee see it fit to disclose to the Committee members their intention to resort to a court ordered solution, a resort which was initiated formally since May 23, 2011, as revealed in their filed court submissions.”
The observer believes this action brings that Party’s integrity into serious question, and drew attention to its duplicity, particularly in the case of the PNCR Member of Parliament who sits on the Appointive Committee and was also named as a plaintiff in her Party’s court action.
Sections of society have viewed the opposition’s move to muzzle the ERC as paving the way for them to campaign on racial and ethnic insecurities, using ACDA (African Cultural and Development Association)’s Tacuma Ogunseye’s statement as the raison d’кtre for  their assault on the ERC.
“The PNCR believes if there is no ERC, then they can get away with infractions of the law, as there will be no body to monitor and make sanctions. This is not entirely true, because the racial hostility act can still be enforced outside of the ERC,” the observer argued.
He went on to say that the PNCR’s arrogance runs deep in this matter, because they have been targeting the ERC Chairman, Bishop Juan Edghill and Commissioner Carvil Duncan for a long time. “While this might be Corbin’s way of being vindictive, because he believes Edghill and Duncan are traitors, the motive is part of a wider sinister plot to create fear and anxiety at elections time,’’ he posited.
Once the matter is before the court, the Appointive Committee would be restrained from discussing it, and its determination in the court could take years.
The injunction, which was granted on May 31, 2011, bars the ERC chairman and two commissioners from taking any decision, making any recommendation, or issuing any directive on behalf of the constitutional body.
High Court Judge, James Bovell- Drakes issued the restriction and a conservatory order directing Edghill and Commissioners Duncan and John Willems, the defendants, from styling themselves as chairman and members of the constitutional Commission until the hearing and determination of a summons in the case.
The Office of the President subsequently issued a statement saying it has duly noted Corbin’s attempt to muzzle the ERC by issuing an ex-parte injunction restraining the Commission from discharging its constitutional mandate.
The statement also called on Guyanese to repudiate the PNCR’s efforts to muzzle the ERC, particularly at this time of heightened political activities associated with campaigning for the upcoming general and regional elections.
“… the vast majority of Guyanese would support the contention of the government of Guyana that the ERC has been exemplary in the discharge of its constitutional mandate,” the OP statement said.