Dear Editor,
I HAVE a few questions for our judges in the Court of Appeal who will be reviewing the government’s application for an interim stay to halt the decision of the High Court, and to preserve the status quo of the Cabinet.
I think our constitution is supreme and rightly so. The PPP, the Guyana Bar Association (GBA) and the Private Sector Commission (PSC) are all stating that the Cabinet should resign forthwith, on passage of NCM (no-confidence motion) based on the CJ’s (Chief Justice’s) interpretation of the Constitution which is not final.
Firstly, if the Cabinet resigns who will the opposition oppose? They can only oppose themselves since the executive branch of the government would be nonexistent with the resignation of the Cabinet. Not sure if that makes sense honourable judges.
Secondly, the Constitution states that elections should be held in 90 days after a successful passage of NCM. The constitution also states that the elections can be delayed with a two-thirds vote in Parliament. Presently the Government has 33 MPs while the opposition has 32. Two-third of 65 is roughly 43. If the Cabinet resigns then there will only be 32 MPs, assuming the opposition does not resign. Hence with only their vote, that threshold of a two-thirds majority would not be met. They can only get that two-thirds majority with the Cabinet being in place i.e. not resigning. If the cabinet resigns then there can be no extension to the 90 days as outlined by the constitution. To me that’s a contradiction, which by its action, will deny a rightfully constitutional act. Clearly, the framers of the Constitution could not have meant that the Cabinet should resign forthwith, but yet state that an already resigned cabinet can make an extension to the 90 days with a two-third majority in Parliament. I wonder if the learned judges can clarify that for me?

Thirdly, we all have our right of day in the court. Therefore, if the Cabinet resigns without having a final decision in the highest court, the CCJ, would that not be denying them of their constitutional right?
Fourthly, if they resign, call elections then loses the said election, but wins the NCM court case in the higher court then what happens? Would the newly-elected government have to resign, and if they don’t, can one expect a new cycle of court cases instituted by the once government now made opposition, with appeals and counter appeals, all because of a decision to resign while an active court case is going on? Please clarify this for me honourable judges.

Now some questions or rather distance education for Bharat Jagdeo. Since the passage of this NCM with the ensuing court cases, I’ve been using analogies to explain my layman’s understanding of the law. Bharat Jagdeo is now getting into the act. I’m not saying he is plagiarising my mode of reasoning but the closeness of it to my many analogies is concerning. Jagdeo had this to say. “If someone is convicted on a charge of murder, they may appeal the ruling at a higher court. However, they must still remain in prison while such litigation is ongoing”
Jagdeo has a point but there is a serious fallacy in his argument. The murderer cannot walk the streets because of public safety, not because a crime was committed but the nature of the crime i.e. murder which is a violent crime. A lesser crime, i.e. nonviolent crime and that criminal would be walking the streets like nothing happened. Let’s say Sheneza Jafarally, the PPP bomb child is found guilty, it is very unlikely that she will be bailed if convicted, then appeal because of the nature of her crime. This is evident in her not being bailed, even though she has not been convicted.
Let’s say Irfaan Ali, Dr. Ashni Singh and Mr. Brassington and Anil Nandlall are all found guilty. It is likely that they will be bailed if they appeal. This is evident in them being free to do as they wish, as the cases go through the courts. The point I’m making is that the safety of the public takes paramount in any court decision. Also, while the murderer is appealing his case, no terminal decision would be taken against that murderer i.e. he would not be executed until he has exhausted all of his appeal. In essence, he will have a stay of execution until he has exhausted all of his appeals.
As a result, I would reason that the cabinet should not have a terminal decision taken against them i.e. resign until they have exhausted all their appeals. Also, I would argue that they should have a stay to facilitate these appeals. It is not a legal argument since I’m not a lawyer, it is a commonsensical argument.

A FEW WORDS FOR NASCIMENTO

Finally, a few words for Kit Nascimento. I saw you have written that the Guyana Bar Association (GBA) is on your side. We have Professor Duke Pollard, former CCJ Judge on our side. The Bar Association is a collection of LLBs with one or two LLMs. They should all give deference to Prof. Pollard. Secondly, apparently you are having sleepless nights over my qualifications. Let me give you some medical advice. Stop looking at them and get yourself some sleeping pills from your personal physician. I have earned my degrees. I did not buy them hence, I earned the right to display them. Finally, in that very missive you don’t have a problem with addressing Bharrat Jagdeo as Dr. Jagdeo, despite his doctorate being honorary. By tradition, the title doctor should only be used in correspondence by honorary doctors with the university that bestowed the said individual with the honorary degree. It should not be used for other communications since it is misleading and disingenuous. Further, it is painfully obvious that you are not only a dinosaur but you are also an elitist in addressing someone as doctor, who is clearly not a doctor, but having sleepless nights over a ghetto youth who displays his hard-earned degrees.
In concluding, Kit should be reassured that I have nothing further to say about him and soup-drinking, since my brother Rickford Burke has done a fantastic job of disemboweling him, and shredded whatever little credibility he had. Kit Nascimento is therefore dismissed forthwith to the barnyard.

Regards,
Dr. Mark Devonish MBBS MSc MRCP(UK) FRCP(Edin)
Consultant Acute Medicine
Nottingham University Hospital
UK