NOW that President David Granger has identified March 2, 2019 as the earliest possible date for elections to be held, it is now incumbent on the Opposition to return to Parliament to extend the period by credible elections can be held.
The Constitution at Article 106 (7) states, “Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine, and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the election”. President Granger, in his address to the nation last evening, stressed that the extension of a period beyond three months for the holding of an election is related to the Elections Commission’s readiness to hold the elections. He stated emphatically that the Government of Guyana must, as a consequence, return to the National Assembly to request an extension and announced that the National Assembly will reconvene on 10th October, 2019.

He said, too, that as President, he is required to both dissolve Parliament as provided for in the Constitution at Article 70 (2) and the ten Regional Democratic Councils as provided for in the Constitution at Article 73 (2). The Constitution at Article 61 states: “An election of members of the National Assembly under Article 60 (2) shall be held on such day within three months after every dissolution of Parliament as the President shall appoint by proclamation.”

Additionally, in keeping with the CCJ’s recommendation to heed the constitutional requirement of speedy elections, the Guyana Elections Commission had also done its part by reducing its original timeline for the House-to-house registration from eighteen months to three months. In so doing, it struck a balance between principle and practicality as recommended by the court.

Although the March 2nd timeline would result in elections being held later than the constitutional requirement, it is covered by Article 6-7 which makes allowance for an extension if so required. This is the practicality that the court recommended, and the framers of the constitution envisaged.

The CCJ in its ruling, obviously cognizant of the zero-sum attitude inherent in Guyana’s politics, recommended that the principal actors be guided by cooperation and consensus. After much back and forth, this was heeded by the two leaders in the naming of the GECOM chair.

The President, as he did in the case of the appointment of the GECOM chairman, has shown a willingness to compromise. It is time the opposition leader follow suit. We fear that the PPP’s non-cooperation would not achieve the outcome of holding the elections in the shortest possible time. This can be best achieved through cooperation and consensus.

It is against this background that we urge the PPP to do the right thing by agreeing to an extension of the life of the government in keeping with the requirements of Article 6-7. The party should return to the National Assembly to facilitate this process. By holding on to its stated position of not returning to the Assembly and refusing to recognise the government after September 18, the PPP is not covering itself in glory. At crucial moments like these, responsible and mature leadership is required. The PPP must be mindful that its actions is in breach of Article 6-7 and has the potential of exacerbating unnecessary tensions in the society. We have come a long way as a nation and Guyana deserves better. History would look kindly on Mr. Jagdeo and the PPP if the choose country over narrow partisan considerations. The nation and the world are watching.