Dear Editor
THE captioned “The National Assembly must not be used as a conduit for campaign financing’’, April 03, 2019 in Kaieteur News, is another desperate attempt by the Peoples Progressive Party/Civic(PPP/C) to remain relevant to the current situation, of which it has been its treacherous author; but which has subsequently exposed its vile and evil intentions, gradually drowning it in its own cesspool of dangerous lies, national subterfuge, and deceptions that continue to underline them as the political party it is – self-serving, racist and divisive.

Written by that man of the cloth, Juan Edghill, whose undoubted wish seems to be one of ensuring a rendezvous with the devil in Hades, is another failing exercise of trying to associate the coalition government with unethical practices.

First, here is Edghill, bleating the devious strategy of seeking to influence, and maybe pressurise the Caribbean Court of justice (CCJ), like his party leader and the Private Sector Commission (PSC), into rushing for an early hearing and a decision, just to satisfy their power-grabbing plan/ambitions.

He is aware that the case management session had been held on March 29, with the hearings set to commence on May 10. This, in my layman’s understanding, means the former has laid the groundwork process in preparation for the larger latter undertaking at hand. Yet, Edghill, who has mastered the art of perverse PPP/C misleading and misinformation, stated in his missive that “we can expect a ruling shortly after the 10th day of May”.

This would seem egregious of Edghill in pre-empting when the court will rule; as it is expected to do so, in the shortest time possible after submissions from both sides. But to insert his own anticipation of ‘shortly after’, is to give the erroneous impression that the hearing proper had already commenced as from the March 29 case management date, when it has not; with a decision almost immediately following after the date, May 10. At least that is not the understanding gathered from the media reports.

Edghill must be reminded that the matter is not scheduled to be adjudicated on at Freedom House, but at the CCJ’s properly-constituted place of Justice, Port of Spain, Trinidad.

Secondly, here is Edghill again, seeking to impute another misleading understanding into the Court of Appeal’s decision, and what it really means for the coalition government’s continuity in office, pending the outcome of a PPP/C appeal to the CCJ. Editor, in my own ignorance of the law, but applying both a logic and layman’s interpretation and

understanding of what the decision of the Appeal Court’s judgement means – is that the no-confidence motion vote against the coalition administration has been overturned by such decision of the court, and therefore the government’s tenure has been restored. In plain simple language, for Edghill’s guidance, it means that the current administration must continue its functions in office. One wonders from where Edghill’s twisted rationality originated, to state that the government has no right being in office, notwithstanding the court’s overturning of the no-confidence motion. Editor, I stand to be corrected that this is what this supposedly reverend means

Sure, this is another of the PPP/C’s spin on the judgement, which apart from seeking to publicly criticize the judges and their judgement because it went against their expectation, now seeks to distort the reality of its conclusion: government as usual. But this is Edghill, for and on behalf of his party, seeking to deceptively misinterpret and change the court’s decision.

Thirdly, by dint of the court’s decision and the legal right that it has given that there be government as usual, it means that the latter not only has the right to continue its socio-economic development programmes which has been transforming Guyana, but also the right to enter into any legitimate financial business on behalf of the people and country.

This means that it has the right to go to the National Assembly for any finances, as mandated that will be of aid in furtherance of the State’s well-being – for example, the acquisition of funds for house-to-house registration, which Edghill’s party now fears more than the devil in hell.

Better yet, the international community is aware of the legality of the sitting government and is therefore continuing to engage it with regards furtherance of its domestic policies.
So, resorting to the insinuation of using the National Assembly as a conduit for campaign finances is a non-starter, as it is another unsubstantiated piece of Edghill’s well-established, dishonest, and continuous attempts to bring the government into disrepute, even stymieing its national programmes.

Edghill continues to desecrate his office, that he has shamelessly allowed in tow to the furtherance of his party’s agenda which means no good for the moral or spiritual development of the nation.
Regards
Earl Hamilton