It is simply comical that Opposition Leader, Mr Aubrey Norton continues to make public demands outside of the consultative process with President, Dr Irfaan Ali while at the same time working overtime to mangle the timeline of events.

To anyone informed, the facts of the matter do not in any way support his jaundiced view that the government is stalling the advance of key constitutional appointments for the country.

It appears that Mr Norton is more comfortable clamouring from the outside. Albeit the elected leader of the parliamentary minority, Mr Norton has spent more time rebuking the many efforts of His Excellency to move this process along rather than returning to the mandated decision making table to address what he admits are matters of national importance.

It is unfortunate that Mr Norton has consumed himself with attempting to dictate the President’s schedule. The country has seen quite enough to conclude that there seems to be no serious intent on the part of Norton to engage in meaning consultation. It appears that Mr Norton sees more political value is engaging in dastardly tactics in a hollow attempt to cast aspersions on the good governance mandate of the Dr Ali-led administration enshrined in the President’s unfolding “One Guyana” vision.

As was done before in this editorial, Article 13 of the Constitution must be positioned centrally. That provision instructs that the political system must provide opportunities for the active participation of citizens in national matters, especially on those matters that affect their well-being.

Additionally, a few other consequential events must be rehashed to give greater depth to what followed May 13.

Firstly, Mr Norton was elected to the National Assembly in April. Earlier in May, the first meeting between President Ali and Mr Norton was held at the President’s Shiv Chanderpaul Drive office.

Secondly, it was April 29 letter from Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Minister, Gail Teixeira that initiated the consultative process between the two leaders, culminating in the May 13 meeting.

Thirdly, a joint press statement was issued following that meeting which read: “At the meeting held today, the Leader of the Opposition clarified that the information that is being requested are the Curriculum Vitae (CVs) available within two days. It was further agreed that consultations will be guided by the Constitution and the in-person consultations will resume on a date to be fixed, but within a week.”

It should be noted that since that meeting, the Police Service and Integrity Commissioners and their respective chairpersons have been sworn into office. Mr Norton, rather than acknowledging the filling of the much-needed commissions, signalled his intention to move to the courts.

Fourthly, President Ali invited Mr Norton, continuing the good-faith process, to a May 30 meeting. Mr Norton, however, did not attend. The Opposition Leader, President Ali noted in a Facebook video statement, provided no written communication neither indicating nor justifying his absence. He was, however, in receipt of the requested information outlined in the May 13 joint statement.

It was only after President Ali’s public statement following Norton’s snub of the planned May 30 meeting that the PNC scrambled to cover their tracks by releasing the letter intended for Minister Teixeira attempting to justify his non-participation in the consultation with the President. In that letter with the Opposition Leader’s letterhead affixed, Mr Norton was incensed that the second invitation to consultation happened not “within a week” but instead on May 30.

It must be repeated that it is an embarrassment and an injustice to the public that Mr Norton would dip so low to pull a putrid explanation as this from the hat of disruption politics to justify the further delay of such important constitutional matters. It becomes even more embarrassing as the charade continues with no indication yet of an end. The question still floats unanswered about whether Mr Norton is committed to these consultations, or whether he will continue to nit-pick at technicalities to frustrate the process that otherwise started on reasonable grounds.