Dear Editor,
ON Friday, March 22, 2019, the Guyana Court of Appeal handed down a historic decision, which invalidated the no-confidence motion that was passed against the Guyana government in parliament on December 21, 2018.
This motion triggered an unprecedented political and legal situation that threw the nation into “uncharted waters”.

The Court of Appeal decision effectively lulled the feverish and at times reckless propagandising by the opposition PPPC, their supporters and allies that the government is illegal. The campaign, which was intended to demonise the APNU+AFC coalition government was designed and led by the power-hungry leader of the opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo, who demanded that the David Granger-led government immediately demit office and hold general and regional elections.

As an APNU+AFC supporter, when the no-confidence motion was passed I was disappointed, more so, because a member from our side had jumped ship, thereby facilitating an undeserved result. However, I accepted the developments, and also the inherent logic of early elections. My position on early elections changed after reading Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes’ contention that in the context of Guyana’s Constitution, it requires an absolute majority of 34 votes of the 65 members of parliament and not 33, as ruled by the Speaker, the Hon, Dr Barton Scotland. It will be recalled that at the time of Dr Scotland’s ruling, there was no challenge to it in the House by any member on the government side.

Prior to Mr Hughes’ intervention, no other legal opinion was expressed which pointed to an alternative to the Speaker’s ruling. I, for one, knew of no legal plan by the government to challenge the validity of the motion on the grounds of inadequate votes. However, given Nigel Hughes’ revelation, I became optimistic, and that optimism influenced my politics on the issue and my support of the government’s right to seek a judicial review of the decision.

Frankly, if the revelation that 34 and not 33 votes were required to pass the confidence motion had originated from any other source, – be it lawyer or non-lawyer – I doubt that my eventual support of the argument would have been what it was. This point is very important, since, in supporting Hughes’ position, my political credibility was brought into question by my detractors, particularly, when the hype generated by those who sought to discredit the validity of Mr Hughes’ arguments were taken into consideration.

I knew that it was incumbent on me as a citizen and as a political activist in this country to take a stand on this important national issue. Doing so became less problematic for me, since I was confident that Mr Hughes offered a legal opinion which is rooted in the law and precedence. I was convinced that, unlike some who sought to discredit his opinion, he was not playing politics.

I formed the view that Nigel Hughes was fully aware and confident in offering his opinion on this very important matter, notwithstanding the views of the naysayers and the prophets of doom who would spare no effort to hold him up to public ridicule. The majority opinion expressed at the Guyana Court of Appeal supporting Hughes’ arguments has enhanced his professional reputation. I am grateful for his bold and timely advocacy on this most important national issue.

I was not surprised, given our history of ethnic and political polarization, that the debate on the no-confidence motion would have inevitably been slanted in the direction of political propagandising rather than a principled objective debate. However, I am still disappointed that what should have been a healthy national debate on an important political and legal challenge which, for the first time Guyanese had to confront, turned out to be a propaganda war. Future generations of Guyanese, in reviewing the public polemics on this matter, will not be inspired with what eventuated. Instead, it will be very difficult for them not to be ashamed of our inability to debate such an important national issue in a balanced and responsible manner.

What we experienced was a polarised debate which shouted out for objective reasoning, but was influenced to a large degree in support of a political and criminal conspiracy and galvanised by the hysteria of a media gullible to sensationalism and driven by an agenda for regime change. I wish here to give recognition to Brother Kidackie Amsterdam for his insightful observation on the political situation since the passing of the no-confidence motion, which he made on Walter Rodney Groundings.

In his comments, Amsterdam posited the view that what has emerged in that critical period of the “no-confidence vote” debate, was a grand alliance against the APNU+AFC government by the “rich and corrupt” in society. This formulation captured an important element in the present political situation.

What also became clear is that most of the privately-owned media – print and electronic – owners and operators of big businesses and other very important persons were complicit in promoting the political/criminal conspiracy, which was organised by the opposition PPPC. The objective was then, and remains, the restoration of the criminal State that was established during the PPP’s 23 years domination of the country whose existence they benefitted financially from.

Another worrying concern as a result of the unabated vicious attacks in the media on the government that was deemed undemocratic, dictatorial and illegal, was the undisguised absence of care and total disregard for (1) the right to access the corridors and process of litigation by the government in search of a resolution to the problem; and (2) the welfare and wellbeing of citizens who would have been, and will be, most affected by any internal unrest resulting from the efforts of those in the forefront of promoting instability in the country. These, to my mind, raise questions about those persons/organisations sense of democracy and their apparent absence of adherence to the rule of law.

A careful analysis of the post-no-confidence motion struggle would demonstrate that there was a significant realignment of social and political forces in society. It is now pertinent for the leadership of the APNU+AFC coalition to understand the nature of this development and its political imperatives. An obvious question is whether the new alignments have shifted the balance of forces in the society to the advantage of the government or the opposition in a way that is irreversible. How each side answers this question will determine who will prevail come elections.

Social and political commentators have pointed to the effect the pending oil-and-gas revenues will have on the political struggle, making the elections a zero-sum contest. The situation in Guyana since the passage of the no-confidence motion has deteriorated at all levels. When this is seen in the context of first-oil and gas, with its immense possibilities for the transformation of the country and its people in a way never before experienced in the history of the nation, the situation can be equated to someone adding fuel to fire.

This reality objectively makes the upcoming national and regional elections an unprecedented “high stakes” contest for political power. Simply put: The results will determine who would control the enormous oil-and-gas revenues. Not surprisingly, the no-confidence motion was engineered with the sole intention to give the PPPC and their criminal allies a decisive advantage in the elections, if held in the 90-day period immediately after the motion was passed.

The passage of the no-confidence motion made the APNU+AFC government a victim of a well-thought-out-and-executed political ambush. The coalition must be given credit for surviving the attack. It recognised the logic of real politics, and resorted to Hughes’ advice to challenge the validity of the results of the vote. The PPP, Jagdeo and his allies’ concerted attempts to force it into elections without first exhausting the process of legal review failed miserably. Given the fact that Guyana had not previously dealt with a confidence motion and its consequences, it was incumbent upon the government to explore every possibility to ensure that the vote was valaid. Nigel Hughes’ formula provided the foundation from which a successful challenge was launched.

The PPPC’s lip service to the rule of law was exposed in its response to the Appeal Court’s decision that invalidated the Chief Justice’s High Court ruling. When the courts earlier had ruled in its favour, Jagdeo hailed it as a bastion of the rule of law. When the motion was reversed by the Appeal Court, Jagdeo the PPPC changed its tune, accusing the court of questionable maths. They conveniently ignored the fact that the ruling was based on legal precedence, and not simply on an application of mathematics.

In closing, one can only wonder what will be the PPPC’s position if the highest court of the land, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), upholds the ruling of the Appeal Court.

Regards
Tacuma Ogunseye