Dear Editor,
William Shakespeare must have materially anticipated the likes Dr. Vishnu Ragoonath. I refer to an article in the Guyana Times under the deceptive caption “Caribbean wonders reasons for Government approaching CCJ” (Monday, May 13, 2019). Mark Anthony, in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, made this seminal observation: “Oh judgment thou art fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason”. Dr. Ragoonath must have lost his reason. His capacity for judgment must have fled. And, it is for just that reason that his political diatribe has found such front page prominence in nowhere else but Guyana Times.

Below, I articulate my reasons for such harsh criticism of Dr. Ragoonath. But first full disclosure: I am not disassociated from government’s litigation in this matter; but I was not a member of the government’s team of lawyers appearing before the CCJ.
First, it is both common sense, and sound constitutionalism, that those in public office, who are responsible for representing and advocating the PUBLIC INTEREST in court, must be the sole judges of what that public interest requires. Under our constitution that responsibility is, exclusively that of the attorney general. The Attorney General is Basil Williams, S.C. Dr. Ragoonath, self-evidently in his seeming anti-government dispensation, and disposition, ignores, at worst, or trivialises, at best, this constitutional truism. So, with his political blinkers on about government’s considered decision to have the constitutionality of the passage of the No-confidence Resolution (R101), finally and authoritatively, determined by the courts, he says “So it is something that most of us as POLITICAL SCIENTISTS AND LAY PEOPLE in the Caribbean would have (asked) why is Guyana going down this route. Why are they not going to call elections when they should and why is the government now challenging this thing when they initially accepted it.” Editor, no constitution, not ours, is written by, or for, an interpretation by lay people (and for present purposes “political scientist” no matter how academically qualified, are lay people). Our constitution was written/drafted by lawyers bred and nurtured in the tradition of technicalities and complexities of legal-constitutional concepts (e.g. simple and absolute majority). Our constitution was intended by its framers to be interpreted not by “laypeople”; but by judges bred and nurtured in those technicalities. Whatever the ruling of the CCJ, the concept of absolute majority is a technicality of ancient vintage, as the case of Sir Arthur Clay and others v The Grand Junction Water Works Company (1904) illustrates. Judicial clarification of such technicality in the context of our Constitution, is not an option, it is an imperative.

Second, there is no virtue in the persistence of an error in interpretation of the Constitution, and its misapplication (given the Court of Appeal decision) at the level of the Speaker of the National Assembly. It must be a matter of sheer common sense, and sound judgment, that on a matter with the potential of subverting, impairing, undermining, cutting down the five years term of office of an elected government as entrenched by the framers of the constitution, full and final determination by the courts (being the only constitutional interpreters of our constitution) was not merely desirable, but emphatically, a matter of FIRST RESORT; not last resort, given that a constitutional crisis of uncertainty about the validity of this government, needed to be timeously avoided in the public’s interest.

So, if that was the thinking of the learned attorney general (in his constitutional capacity as “principal legal adviser to the Government of Guyana” – article 112), no one exercising sound judgment, and reason, can, or would, fault him (“AG wants court to determine absolute majority in no-confidence vote” Guyana Chronicle Tuesday, January 8, 2019). Nor, was the AG alone in this disposition. The Honourable Speaker of the National Assembly decidedly took this position. Here, in his own words, is an excerpt from Dr. Barton Scotland, the Speaker (holder of a doctorate degree in law- Ph. D; recipient of the Order of Roraima (OR), and more relevantly, a practicing lawyer) in his address to the House viz: “Honourable Members, during the last week I have received, from diverse sources, information, both solicited and unsolicited, supported by Case Law and practice emanating from other jurisdictions WHICH HAS RAISED DOUBTS as to whether the no-confidence motion was carried and properly so, by the majority of vote…..FULL, FINAL AND COMPLETE settlement of these issues by a court of competent jurisdiction will place, beyond doubt, any question which may exist and serve to give guidance to the Speaker and to the National Assembly for the future” (“Announcements by Dr. Barton Scotland, Speaker of the National Assembly” Guyana Chronicle Friday, January 4, 2019). Surely, no unbiased commentator can say that Dr. Scotland’s judgment had fled to brutish beast, or that he had lost his reason in advocating such a position. Quite the contrary.

Third, perhaps as a political scientist, Dr. Ragoonath (even as a matter of intellectual curiosity) should have discussed with his invented Caribbean audience, whether the elected APNU+AFC government owes a primary, fiduciary duty to that majority of the electorate who democratically elected it, to endeavor to serve it for the five years term (ending on June 10, 2020 all other things being equal) for which duration of time it had elected it, and accordingly, has a legitimate expectation, that unless the Constitution truly and properly applied, clearly, and beyond a reasonable doubt (not disputably or doubtfully) shows the government to be defeated and thereupon required to call or hold early elections, the government would serve them, and country, for that five years. I submit that in both politics, and law, alike, the APNU+AFC government has, and owes, that duty. And I submit further, that the government is not permitted to abdicate that duty, merely to satisfy what some may perceive as political correctness.

So, the question for Dr. Ragoonath is this: would any sensible, rational, and accountable government abdicate (by calling early elections) its duty of five years’ duration service to its electors, and country (see article 70(3) of the Constitution) such early elections involving, as it would, the reality of irretrievable, or irrecoverable loss of year(s) (even when it wins the election), even as the matter is (with much merit, not frivolously or vexatiously) before the courts, for full and FINAL (i.e. only by the CCJ) determination as to whether the government has been defeated by some valid parliamentary process? I submit that the answer is an emphatic – NO. A government cannot, with sound judgement, with reason, rationally be expected to abdicate that duty, and not avail itself of the opportunity within the three months window for challenging the constitutionality of any purported defeat. That defeat was, then, inconclusive, it was reviewable by the courts at the instance of the attorney general, or any interested private party.

Fourth, I hold no brief for the Honourable Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo. But, it seems to me that even the most gullible in opposition would accept that what the PM said on the night of December 21, 2018 (a night that would live in infamy for its grave suspicions of political chicanery and extra-constitutionalities) about elections in three months was manifestly extempore, and in the agony of that moment. It is not about some volte face, (“about turn”). In any event, the Court of Appeal majority ruling on March 22, 2019 that R101 was not carried, and was unconstitutional, as the absolute majority required a vote by 34 members, vindicates, and justifies, such “about turn”.

Fifth, the imputation that the handling of the matter by the courts was somehow conspiratorial (even as the CJ (ag) decision is one unfavourable to the government) is laughable. Courts/judges are not litigants. Courts/ judges do not initiate court proceedings. Compton Herbert Reid, in exercise of his right as a private citizen, was the first litigant to challenge the constitutionality of R101. Subsequently, the AG did so too on different grounds. With commendable alacrity, and urgency, the learned Chief Justice (ag) gave her decision on January 31, 2019. Appeals were filed. Full and final determination was imperative. The Court of Appeal delivered its decision on March 22, 2019. There is no precedent in our judicial annals of such judicial expedition. And, it is a moot point (still not decided) as to when the ‘three months’ period expired. On one possible view, it expired on March 31, 2019. (see section 6(1) (c) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act Cap 2:01 which defines “month” to mean “calendar month” – the month of March ends on the 31st), i.e. even after the Court of Appeal’s decision that the government is valid. Academics are expected to be profound researchers. Dr. Ragoonath does not appear to have done any research.

I end with this: until, (if he does) Dr. Ragoonath disassociates himself from the deception and misjudgments attributed to him in the Guyana Times article, then on one possible view he has adopted them, they are his. The claim this government is “dodging” elections is not obvious. What is obvious is this government’s disposition for constitutional clarity and certainty. The Speaker (even by his presence at the CCJ) and represented in all three courts by a senior counsel, has demonstrated a conviction and commitment, to the court’s resolution of this matter of outstanding and profound constitutional significance. My abdication point is not empty political rhetoric.I welcome (even anticipate) Dr. Ragoonath’s (not Guyana Times) reply to the views I have expressed in this letter.

Regards
Maxwell .E. Edwards
Attorney-at-Law