Dear Editor
NOTWITHSTANDING the verdict of the Caribbean Court of Appeal(CCJ), which would have decided that the opposition-sponsored No Confidence Motion (NCM) against the A Partnership for National Unity+Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) government has been properly carried in the National Assembly; and also the fact that, that judicial verdict has been accepted by President Granger and his government, because it is Guyana’s final court of judicial authority, there remains very troubling issues from the judges’ decisions, and the implications that this verdict may hold for future administrations and governance of Guyana.
As have been illustrated so many times in your letter columns and opinion pages, there is no doubt that the December 21 NCM was hatched on the dark bed of treachery, and promulgated in the nation’s National Assembly in the equally deceptive guise of democratic action.
One did not have to be a political science graduate to comprehend the fact that the NCM was not about the coalition’s performance record as a government, as deviously paraded by the leader of the political opposition, but a naked attempt by the criminal politicians and their equally stained vested interests to grab power, because of the imminent flow of oil, and of course – the aspect of ethnic bias.
Editor, there is no argument, or even doubt, that Guyana, up to December 21, and present time has been enjoying social peace, because of the coalition government’s successful execution of the numerous socio-economic projects that have been transforming lives and communities throughout the administrative regions, as well as a jurisdiction that had been restored to the pantheon of international respect. This is even continuous, as evidenced by the many praises and commendations that are paid to the government for its proper governance, in which respect for the Rule of Law; its continuous fight against corruption and money laundering; trafficking in persons, and a growth-driven economy, are among the significant highlights of national governance.
Therefore, every good government, that is progressive in its vision of wanting a society that is equal and just for all citizens, must have every legitimate opportunity to govern, without becoming the object of nefarious plotters, anti-national crooks, and political judases, as has been the extant situation in Guyana. No government that has brought genuine social change and peace to a country, or even in the absence of such a situation, should be threatened by acts of political mercenaries and political freebooters, bent on stealing the reins of government by devious means. This is not only unfair to the edict of good governance and the society, but also will give rise to the unnecessary disruption to the continuation of governance, thus threatening the stability of the nation.
Without appearing to disrespect the edict of the CCJ, one is compelled to express surprise at the court’s ruling on what constitutes an absolute majority, as against a simple majority, or the fraction of votes necessary to unseat a duly elected government, in such the circumstance of an NCM. Such number should be more than a mere single vote, since it would discourage political gamblers and political crooks, as what occurred in the Guyana situation.
In setting out this position, the court should not have to be reminded that every stable society is the mirror of equally stable government, and that the former can only continue to be socio-economically progressive, if it is governed by the latter. Therefore, it is strongly contended that there must be legislative/constitutional safeguards recognised by the courts, that must protect the legitimate longevity of government against the wicked and capricious acts of those whose only interests are inimical to the best interests of state and people.
Governments, particularly those that continue to uphold the tenets of good governance, must not be subjected to raids on its ability to govern. The CCJ, by its decision on the NCM, has now opened that Pandora’s box in Guyana.
Regards
Earl Hamilton