DID Mr. Tony Vieira commit treason by publicly (KN 2-12-14) advocating the illegal removal of the constitutionally elected Guyana government?
Even if he inserts “Subject to the opposition and the people’s interpretation of these thoughts, it is left up to them to decide if they will ask the Guyana Defence Force to enforce the constitution by whatever means they have at their disposal”, it does not exonerate him from complicit guilt and the avalanche of horror which will ensue threatening human safety. Mr. Vieira has clearly established that Mr Vieira is not personally grounded in reality to be with us. Contrary to affirming that “we are a nation of laws not men” as the second US President John Adams elucidated, are Guyanese to be blindsided like a fool who rushes in where angels fear to tread? Whatever Mr. Vieira may be, cannot be a mystery to bring otherwise comfort by what he embraces.
All such advocacies stand automatically condemned to be terminated with conscious extreme prejudice by all that is legal and justified.

Picking and choosing which laws we obey or dismiss is not optional in a civilized society. Must the operational democratic system of government (Judiciary, Executive and Legislature-JEL) become compromised by every bizarre unsound state of mind by Press Freedom?
“A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse” (Shakespeare’s Richard III) cried a desperate unseated King Richard unable to escape, defenceless and vulnerable on a battlefield just before he met his maker. But safe in his yacht the elderly coup advocate is hardly in possession of himself or any kingdom to give away; or more so, is now a drowning man clutching at a straw.
Anchoring his disagreement with the Honourable Chief Justice’s decision on the budget by clutching onto Mr Eusi Kwayana’s affirmation that “Sovereignty belongs to the people who exercise it through their representatives and the democratic organs established by or under this constitution” in no way nullifies the Judiciary’s decision, invalidate the constitution nor does it endorse its violation. That Mr Kwayana’s opinion is based on a tiny part of the highest law of the land has significantly escaped poignant focus that it originated from within the constitution itself, not outside it.
None except the Judiciary has constitutional authority to overturn or invalidate the Chief Justice’s legal decision. If “Paradise Lost” has created the migraine headache then Federalism is best for “Paradise Regained” (Milton). A negotiated honourable cure is best for all without national chaos, contrary to the armageddon which is now being openly invited to finalize the agenda of ethnic cleansing targeting some Guyanese. Is it realistic to expect targeted Guyanese to acquiesce in their annihilation in the 21st century?
Mr Vieira, who came into his own good fortune during British ownershipof the sugar industry, amassed his wealth in high management on the sugar estates. He had me almost convinced if he should know when heconstantly wrote on sugar. Where is he located either mentally, economically or in the political reality of today’s Guyana to be sootherwise is anyone’s guess. But unlike his wealth of sugar experiences, he seemingly knows little or nothing about government and how it functions. In a democracy everyone has a right to their opinion, including to more than twice dismiss “drivel” of which he is not poor. Most reluctant to originally engage the elderly gentleman in a tit for tat exchange, duty still requires reemphasizing of salient points. (1) The Guyana Constitution is the highest and supreme law of the land and nothing supersedes, alters, modifies compromises, it etc; its modification or change is only possible by the legalities specified within the same document and not by anything outside it. (2) Mr Eusi Kwayana’s quote that “Sovereignty belongs to the people who exercise it through their representatives and the democratic organs established by or under this constitution” is directly found written in the constitution. But such sovereignty is only achieved when exercised
within the perimeters of the same constitution and by no other means.
Noteworthy are the clearly specified orbits where “sovereignty” is “exercised”, “through” ,“representatives” ,“ the democratic organs” ,“ established” ,“ by or under”, “ this constitution.” How many times must this be repeated by an ostensible uncultured pagan descendant that rectification is only through the Judiciary authorized by the highest and supreme law of the land? One “part” does not subsume the “whole” to it. If so then an elephant’s tusk and tail can be interpreted by imagination to materialize and overshadow the entire elephant’s massive body. What is so hard to understand that adds or undermines anyone’s “drivel” stockpile into a cascading coup?
(3) The President’s assent is a pre requirement for a bill to become law in Guyana’s constitution which is a worldwide parliamentary norm.
Same constitution also specifically allows him to withhold assent by giving his reason. He is not constitutionally required to do much more. (4) The1980 constitution specifies that the Finance Minister present the Budget estimates to the National Assembly, which has the power to reject or approve it. No budget means the country grinds to a stop. Since the National Assembly faces a dilemma the Judiciary is empowered to resolve it because the constitution specifies the judiciary as the deciding authority. Former Speaker Mr Ralph Ramkarran, in his conversationtreegy. com website has also explained how the Standing Orders can be suspended to accommodate any opposition reservations and objections after mutual prior compromises from both sides. Unless they compromise to pass the budget they make the problem worse by sending the country over a fiscal cliff. President Barak Obama used the same tactic and the public backlash forced the Republicans to recapitulate afterwards. Would both sides of the legislature risk such a course in Guyana? After mutual compromises it
is incorporated as the Appropriations Bill, which the Finance Minister submits to the same legislature for guaranteed approval. No recourse to the courts would be necessary; neither would court costs be incurred.
(5) The National Assembly Standing orders are not laws contrary to what Mr Kwayana believes and advocates. They are rules and regulators which governs only the National Assembly’s internal operations. Standing
orders are routinely suspended by the Speaker after a carried motion unlike nationwide laws done during a rare state of emergency e.g. natural disasters, for health quarantine or ensuing conflict specific
to an area. (6) Lastly, the armed forces chain of command is through and only by the President as Commander in Chief as specified in the constitution. Any violent coup would be illegal and set Guyana on a point of no return into Kaieteur Falls. Winning a war may be easy, but how to win the peace should be better left unanswered, considering our history. In any event, a democratic society always holds those accountable who were responsible for their miseries long after a coup or political abnormality.Additionally, both Mr Kwayana and I have acknowledged (separately and unknown at the time) that the National Assembly includes the President to make it Parliament. But twice to my good fortune, ‘drivel” was lavishly bequeathed to me by Mr Vieira. In all fairness to Mr Kwayana, (who always insists on equality) shouldn’t he get his own share?
Anyone mounting an imaginary elephant express igniting false hopes, to fill old mother Hubbard’s bare cupboard in anticipation of wealth redistribution would be so relieved. Walk the talk. APNU rejected the PSC’s written request to observe the Public Accounts Committee at work. The entire APNU/AFC opposition and even the Speaker also disallowed the Finance Minister from reading a PSC letter in the National Assembly, which was requesting the AML to be expeditiously approved. Is it a constitutional violation of the “people’s sovereignty”? Step up to the plate now. Unless “all are equal but some are more equal than others” (George Orwell’s 1984), all the usual suspects, can boldly go where none have gone before with a “civil society” challenge in court. Isn’t ‘the principle the same for all, regardless…or are some indeed more equal than others? For
baksheesh (a little extra) with this garlic pork, their court challenge can throw in presidential violation of English common laws. Ignore for the moment which party enshrined and empowered Presidential
prerogatives in the constitution as law. Expecting the President to uphold the constitution after taking an oath to defend it and then subsequently signing a bill considered to be violating the highest law
of the land is unquestionably a premeditative violation. Right now “we are a country of laws not men” as second US President John Adams so astutely affirmed. Replacing elected government by a military coup
can never be acceptable where men and women have lost their reason compared to a functional democracy. Federalism is still the better option than complete partition. After the coup, how does sovereignty
of the people become reestablished afterwards? It will follow no compass or known roadmap because we would have taken one giant leap in demonstrating brutal might is right outside the rule of law. Guyana’s
military is not equipped, ethnically balanced, constitutionally empowered to adjudicate, govern in fairness or to relinquish authority except by civilian command in a democracy. A cyclical repeat of 1953, 1964, 1992 and now 2014 is our curse, where we are at heart’s ease when only empowered outsiders step in to resolve our problems.
Written By SULTAN MOHAMED