MR Ralph Ramkarran hit the nail on the head in analysing the Honourable Chief Justice, Mr. Ian Chang’s ruling on the budget. In fact, his clarification why the ruling was sound and inviolable became clearer in his blog site, conversationtreegy.com, as published in SN of 2-2-14.But Mr Eusi Kwayana finds the decision objectionable, as usual, in the SN of 2-1-14. Can motive, if any, explain why both speak their minds, but they differ significantly? Who makes the better case?
There is currently no constitutional crisis in Guyana, because the checks and balances are in place, operating normally. How the Opposition resolves problems is a meter by which to judge how they will behave in government. For example, by the Declaration of Sophia, Mr Forbes Burnham’s PNC subsumed the entire country, including the
judiciary, to his PNC party by symbolically flying the PNC flag over
the Court of Appeal.
Moulded within such a mindset, does it adequately explain why his successors seem petrified, with only a headache seen as a constitutional crisis? Did the ground hit their head, or did their head hit the ground?
Most ridiculous is any wailing lamentation that the National Assembly has been legally circumcised or neutered. Relief is always most permissible and possible for rectification by appealing to the Guyana Court of Appeal and subsequently the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as permitted.
Alternatively, the combined opposition can let the Executive (specifically, the Finance Minister) know when the entire National Assembly becomes the Committee of Supply where they need compromise. They are the majority, by the 2011 elections, and their mandate does count, compared to negotiations on the streets.
A stinking city with the usual chaos is no way to capitalize on a bigger airport, with tourists being scared away, failing which they have that power to reject the entire budget; force the Finance Minister to submit everything all over again, since no money was authorized to run the country.
Not only would it grind the entire country to a halt, but would both sides of the legislature risk committing nationwide Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Additionally, the opposition can move a no-confidence motion (it has
the majority), and legally reset the government to be decided by the
electorate.
The President is constitutionally required to dissolve parliament and call fresh elections. Where and how does this make the Opposition impotent? Guyana will, indeed, remain a democratic country governed by law and order, unless its Constitution is raped by the gifted confused, who “…cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war” (Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar).
The right to disagree in a democracy is as normal as best finding relief in court. Whatever is implied can only be dangerous intent or not, should Mr Kwayana mean otherwise than the Judiciary, that “It is the work of the political culture to keep them from intruding unlawfully on one another’s jurisdictions.”
But legal responsibility for reconsideration and any readjustment
permanently resides only within the judiciary, empowered by the Constitution itself, and no one else. All sovereignty which lies in the people becomes most prudent and valid when it is in harmony, sanctified and expressed only through the same Constitution’s judiciary , and not outside the law of a civilized society.
That the Guyana Constitution is the highest and supreme law of the land
is without question. The judiciary alone is empowered by the Guyana Constitution to be its interpreter, enforcer, adjudicator and guardian. It does not become subsumed, changed, diluted, altered or a subject to or by any subsidiary law(s) or rules. The judicial process must run its course. Change is also possible by changing the Constitution itself, no easy task, and this is where the basis of dialogue can begin.
In the meantime, all national laws passed by the National Assembly and ratified by the President’s signature automatically empowers the judiciary as the adjudicator to interpret, and ensures its implementation, imposing necessary penalties. Existing rules or regulations in the National Assembly which regulates its operations are valid, save and except only when they conflict, attempt to supersede, nullify, invalidate or compromise, etc constitutional authority.
All, without exception, are subjected to constitutional authority, including the executive and legislature. The judiciary itself is not immune from the law. A judge or magistrate will be charged for murder regardless. Disobeying the decisions of the judiciary is usually contempt of court and illegal – always subject to penalties. The Honourable Chief Justice, Mr Ian Chang, has upheld and justified constitutional authority where it speaks for itself. Disagreement with a judicial ruling cannot nullify the source by which it was guided and validated.
What is ironic is that Guyana’s Chief Justice has upheld the highest law
of the land, and the legal luminaries in the Opposition are with headache! All three dictators later paid the price when Commonwealth Uganda’s General Idi Amin killed the Chief Justice and dumped his body in the Limpopo River; Pakistan‘s President, General Pervez Musharraf jailed the Chief Justice, and lawyers led street protests; and lastly, CARICOM’s Trinidad Prime Minister Patrick Manning removed Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma on false charges. Both the Pakistani and Trinidadian Chief Justices were exonerated
afterwards in court.
That Red Thread, ACDA, the Guyana Human Rights Association, Guyana Bar Association and civil society, except the Private Sector Commission (PSC), have chosen to remain silent is absolutely no surprise. President Barack Obama did say a pig still remains a pig, even if you put lipstick on it.
Since the past is inspiring for Mr Kwayana, it obviously explains why
he easily casts doubt on the court. His friend’s retort that the traditional combing history of the Committee of Supply (COS) — when the entire National Assembly becomes one committee — is now a farce, is only to profit by huckster resale.
Just to be most fair and kind, let’s assume that he did not have in mind a return to the good old PNC killing days. Nevertheless, whatever motivates Mr Kwayana’s objections is no longer a mystery. But what can actually motivate former Speaker, Mr Ramkarran, when he actually enjoins the Court? Mr Ramkarran clarified that the long-ago story (1966 Guyana’s independence
Constitution) was replaced by the 1980 Constitution.
Since there is uncertainty about how the gridlock in the National Assembly should be resolved, the Court was the appropriate means of resolution in the highest legal authority of the Constitution. The Honourable Chief Justice
delivered a brilliant legal ruling, unprecedented in its scope, analysis and novelty. Mr Ramkarran zeroed in on the finesse with which the Court ruled.
The Opposition says it can amend the budget, no doubt because of its majority. The Constitution says it can, but not by encroaching on the executive’s right to present the budget. Additionally, the Judiciary does clarify, not neuter how the legislature can protect their rights.
Mr Kwayana is yet to reconcile Guyana’s parliamentary history, where
the Standing Order rules previously regulated only clear cases of White and Black, i.e., majority government and clear-cut minority opposition. This is where he is no doubt familiar as a PPP minister.
If travelling by elephant express into the 21st Century is burdensome, can an elephant attempting to colour spray the 1980 Guyana Constitution from afar still cut it? He writes: “In Guyana, it should be easy for a Court to appreciate that the business of the National Assembly is governed by a special body of rules with the status of law called Standing Orders.” Are not procedures of the Courts governed by Rules of Court? And does not the High Court Act empower Courts to determine their own procedure where the Rules of Court do not apply?
Where such an argument is completely untenable is when, like Mr Kwayana so often does, he expects his ideas and the National Assembly rules to supersede Guyana’s constitution! Unlike the past, the 1980 PNC Constitution actually now permits and regulates the Executive
Presidency to head a minority government as the new legal norm.
Refreshing the painted lanes on the highway to ensure the integrity of government traffic necessary for avoidance of anarchy and chaos in no way affixes blameworthiness on the Traffic Department. Only an ill prepared or bad driver blames their tools, other drivers, and the traffic enforcer.
Is Mr. Kwayana’s approach outdated as a very, very senior citizen? His legitimate concerns, advocating respect and appreciation for the rights and rules of the National Assembly are indeed valid; but what about the rights of the Executive and Judiciary?
The Chief Justice has now clarified all three branches constitutional rights and demarcations, which will hopefully prevent future problems for everyone. Compromise is now a necessity, and our politicians must start talking with each other. Go ahead! Make our days better!
Written By SULTAN MOHAMED