Well, last week revealed how terribly wrong the parliamentary opposition of APNU and the AFC have been, and remain, on very crucial national issues, yet continue to demonstrate customary arrogance and self-righteousness that betray a worrying contempt for public opinion.
The two most outstanding examples being referenced here relate to the findings of the high-level Commission of Inquiry into what’s popularly known as the “Linden political crisis” of July last year.
Secondly, the firm ruling by Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr Raphael Trotman, to end the unconstitutional “gagging” of Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, from speaking in the 65-member parliament of which he is an elected representative.
Both the Speaker’s ruling and the Commission’s findings, now very much in the public domain for scrutiny, have revealed, by separate, independent Statement and Report, how the APNU/AFC coalition got it so very wrong for choosing to make of Home Affairs Minister Rohee the “fall guy” for police involvement in the deaths of three Lindeners during that heavily politicised crisis in Linden.
The politics of fanning strife to undermine the legitimacy of a democratically elected government and the rule of law, would be dangerous for ANY society. Most certainly for nations having to cope with ethnic and cultural diversities such as ours, as well as in contending with challenges to avoid compromising the integrity and independence of vital institutions such as Parliament, the Judiciary and Security Forces (police and army).
Speaker Trotman’s well articulated ruling—-circulated to all parliamentarians and made available to the media—has made it abundantly clear that, whatever may have been the original doubts or reservations, based on the combined opposition’s “no confidence” motion against Mr Rohee, it was simply “wrong” to have denied him the constitutional right to speak and be heard in parliament.
The Speaker alluded to an earlier temporary judgement by acting Chief Justice, Mr Ian Chang, in support of his own final position. Mr Trotman’s ruling had the immediate effect of setting the proverbial ‘cat among the pigeons’ for a coalition which, from the beginning of a post-2011 election expedient arrangement, had demonstrated what really unites them–namely, a shared political hatred for the governing PPP/C.
Hence, the lingering hostility without ANY serious effort to promote mature dialogue. Irrespective of ethnicities or political alignments, Guyanese would be aware of the implications of this political scenario.
As events unfolded, there emerged a remarkable coincidence last week with the submission of the Commission of Inquiry Report and, a day later, the final ruling by Chief Justice Chang that confirmed the denial of Mr Rohee’s right to speak in parliament as a constitutional violation that should NOT be sustained.
The ‘gagging’ of the Home Affairs Minister had its genesis in a “no confidence” motion initiated by the Opposition Leader, Mr David Granger–ex-GDF Brigadier; current leader of APNU and PNCR and as such, Opposition Leader. As expected, Mr Granger’’s ill-advised motion had the full support of the AFC, with its former founder-leader presiding as Speaker. The Chief Justice was to later offer his landmark ruling that the motion was both “misconceived and unconstitutional”.
Now APNU has to cope with the announced, forthcoming political reality that the AFC’s seven votes in parliament will be cast, if necessary, in support of the Speaker’s ruling to end the denial of Rohee’s right to speak and be heard in parliament. We must, therefore, await witnessing of APNU’s coming political choreography on this very crucial national development.
This could well prove a defining moment for the future of an anti-government position that, depending on one’s political perspective, is attempting to either signal willingness to amend its convoluted politic ways.
Or simply continue with APNU’ surprising politics of opposition for the sake of it, even if different in aspects from the leadership offered for so long by Mr Robert Corbin who, eventually, voluntarily chose to step aside without having to face a “no-confidence” vote!!.
Colleagues of Mr Granger, like APNU’s parliamentarians Basil Williams and Deborah Backer, both still very much in the firing line with intemperate, emotional rhetoric against Rohee and the government, have been left to engage in an expedient words game following both the Speaker’s ruling and the very crucial final declaration by Chief Justice Chang.
In the prevailing circumstances, the big, quite relevant question is whether, in the national interest, the citizens of Guyana should expect, if not any evidence of remorse on the part of the leadership of APNU and the AFC, at least some modicum of respect for their intelligence by showing a willingness to scratch the errors made and move on with evident disposition in favour of dialogue, rather than the constant fare of bitter confrontational politics that’s so counter-productive for GUYANA’S FUTURE!!
