Dear Editor,
IT was on Tuesday 26th June this year that the Caribbean Court of Justice (by a 6-1 majority) upheld the exercise of the power and right of Parliament to alter/amend our Constitution in the manner as restricted only by the provisions of article 164 (the Cedric Richardson, Third Term Case).

The vote of confidence defeat of the APNU + AFC Government has, as I will show, brought into sharp focus the political necessity for the exercise of such power by this government. I will argue that as a counterattack against the Jagdeo-Persaud conspiratorial House AMBUSH, it is both constitutionally astute and politically good sense to enact an amendment to article 106(7) of the Constitution.

By no Orwellian illogicality must this government be the victim of the burden of the PPP/C’s assertion of its vote of confidence right under article 106(6), but deny itself as if it was somehow only entitled to a lesser equality; the benefit of a constitutionally permitted “longer period” beyond “three months” permitted by article 106(7). The constitutional prognosis for this government to remain in office until 2020 is good. And this “longer period” is of utmost necessity given the present medical circumstances of President David Granger. The PPP/C must not be permitted to, with predatory instinct, exploit to their political advantage, H.E. President David Granger’s medical inconvenience.

Editor, constitutional law and action can sometimes be a very intricate business. Sometimes it goes beyond the superficiality of the layman’s first impressions from the cold printed words in the Constitution, as for example the “three months” hysteria about Elections. It is the intricacies of this matter that I elucidate.

The starting point is, of course, for the layman/reader’s benefit a full quote of articles 106(6) and 106(7) thus – “ 106(6) The cabinet, including the President shall resign if the government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence”; and “ 106(7) NOTWITHSTANDING its defeat, the government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, OR SUCH LONGER PERIOD as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly, determine and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the election”. So, plainly, the “three months” period was never conceived of by the constitution framers as necessarily final, binding and absolute. It was, and is, amenable to enlargement or extension vis-à-vis the words “such longer period” (indefinite in its phraseology).

And that brings me to this point, how is that “such longer period” to be achieved given that this government does not have the two-thirds majority presently necessary to pass the “resolution” in terms of article 106(7). And here is where superficiality ends, and intricacies begin. I contend that this government could, as a matter of strict constitutional law, delete the whole article 106 with retrospective effect, and vitiate and render nugatory its defeat by the vote of confidence. What it could have done prior to the defeat, it can equally do after, as it “remain in office” But I do not argue or advocate for such an entire repeal. Not at all. I argue the constitutional permissibility of a partial alteration of article 106(7) by the deletion of the words “supported by not less than two thirds” therein, and the substitution ‘there for’ of the words “by a majority”.

So, I must unravel and elucidate a further intricacy: how would this government be able to so easily amend/alter article 106(7) in that way? Here is the good news, perhaps by Divine prescience, perhaps by some material anticipation of the likes of Charrandas Persaud in Guyanese politics, the Constitution framers DID NOT ENTRENCH article 106 of the Constitution in either article 164(2) (a), or 164 (2) (b). And for the layman/reader,

entrench connotes protection from easy alteration by a requirement of a referendum and a two-thirds majority; or a two-thirds majority only (as the case may be) for an alteration, but article 106 was left vulnerable and susceptible to alteration by a government with a bare one-seat majority in the National Assembly. And in the events which have happened, exploiting this vulnerability attracts no opprobrium. And one must not confuse the two-thirds in article 106 (7) with the two-thirds conditionality in either article 164 (2) (a) and 164 (2) (b) for the simple reason that the two-thirds requirement in article 106 (7) does not convert article 106 into an article 164 (2) (a) or 164(b) article for alteration purposes. Article 106 remains and falls within article 164(1) for alteration purposes.

And, so it is, that after the formalities of a RECALL and ouster of Charrandass Persaud as a member of the APNU + AFC in the National Assembly [see article 156 (3) (c) and 156 (4) (b)]; and his replacement by “further extraction” by President Granger from the APNU + AFC List of Candidates that contested the 2015 General Elections [see section 99A (1) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, Cap 1:03] are completed in due course, this government will have regained its majority in the National Assembly and so be able (on its own) to introduce a Bill for the amendment of article 106 (7), have it debated and passed, and assented to by the President in due course; immediately thereafter the Prime Minister (as leader of government business in the House) would propose/present a motion/petition (as the case may be) for the resolution (in terms of article 106 (7)) to extend the life of the government to January 2020. It is as simple as that. Time is of the essence.

I anticipate howls and screams of protestations and lamentations by the Opposition, and perhaps by public relations, and political science commentators. But a problem that turns midwifery into abortion needs a condign, robust and intense solution; it needs intensive care, not first aid. In this matter, pacifist, abstract disquisition on theories about

democracy is neither useful nor expedient if it defies the self-interest and adversariality inherent in the very idea of an Opposition wanting to cut short the life of a government elected for five years. Persaud, by his membership, was entrusted (as one of the 33 MPs) to deliver this government’s full five (5) years term. Instead of delivery, he has acted in concert and has attempted wilful abortion (some might say infanticide), by his vote with the PPP/C, and against this government for whom he was a co-trustee, in a constitutional agency relationship.

I end with this: for myself, resignation now by this government is not some fait accompli. It is neither a politically viable, nor constitutionally astute option. This government should, and must, avail itself of that “longer period” which the intricacies of our Constitution facilitates. The choice for the government is as between meekly succumbing to the wound inflicted by the Jagdeo-Persaud ambush, or a decisive counter-attack within its constitutional boundaries, and within its governmental powers, as the government which “remain in force”. History will not absolve this government if it panders to this PPP/C Opposition.
Regards
Maxwell E. Edwards