Dear Editor
THE Guyana Constitution–familiarly known as the Burnham Constitution–is flawed. It has always been flawed. The person who was the first to benefit from its enactment, constructed the constitution so he could have benefited from its flaws. Even after the 1980 amendments, it still remains flawed.
The sad reality is that the constitution is flawed, to the hurt of the progress and development of Guyana. The constitution is so flawed that all the opposition parties over the last 50 years had problems with how the respective governments applied it.
President Cheddi Jagan had a problem with the Guyana Constitution. Especially the fact that Burnham was Executive President for life. President Desmond Hoyte had a problem with the Guyana Constitution. Especially when President-elect, Janet Jagan, blatantly disregarded the injunction from the Chief Justice. (The Burnham Constitution allowed for such behaviours.) The APNU+AFC leaders, while in opposition, had a problem with the Guyana Constitution. To avoid an embarrassing no-confidence motion against him, President Ramotar prorogued the parliament. (The Burnham Constitution allowed for such actions.)
The Guyana Constitution is so flawed that the APNU+AFC coalition while in opposition and on the campaign trail, promised the nation, faithfully, that if the people elected them, in their first 100 days they would reform the flawed constitution. Now it is looking like this will be another unfulfilled coalition promise. It was published that President Granger is refusing to give a timeline for the promised constitutional reform. This is sad. In what appears to be a shifting of the goalpost, the President is saying that he needs to see some national discourses on the proposed amendments.
Editor, that sounds plausible. However, it seems like an attempt to further delay the much needed constitutional reform. If the President cannot, or will not, give a timeline for constitutional reform, then he should at the least give a timeline for the beginning of the public discourses he claims he needs to see. For the President to simply tell the country that he needs public discourses on the matter, yet do not say who will be responsible for organising those discourses, or when they will begin, is really unacceptable.
Editor, there is a current discourse going on in relation to the amendment of the Juvenile Justice Bill. Given my knowledge in this field, a draft copy of the bill was sent to me by the Public Security Ministry. I made my inputs for additions and deletions. A few weeks ago, several stakeholders were summoned to the Pegasus Hotel for a public discourse on the bill. If the President wishes to have public discourses on amending the Constitution, there needs to be a similar template. A draft document of the proposed amendments that Mr Nigel Hughes submitted to the President needs to be sent to stakeholders, or otherwise published. Some structured group needs to be assigned to organising the public discourses across the country. And timelines, both for the commencement of the public discourses and the compilation of those findings, need to be established. Aside from these deliberate structures, reform to the publicly acknowledged flawed Guyana Constitution will never see the light of day. Editor, please allow me to end by saying that it is very disheartening how some politicians become so flippant about the promises they make in desperate times.
Regards
Pastor Wendell Jeffrey