Dear Editor

Stanley Ming is one of the very few Guyanese, who in these very troubling times of shameless selling of personal integrity, and self-flagellation and self-subversion for promises of oil, has continued to represent the profound principles which he has always upheld.

Immediately, one refers to the bloated list of national registrants, which he unhesitating called into question, as being bloated and therefore tainted for the purposes of a national elections. He not only made a verbal exposition of this fact, but presented a factual illustration by way of statistics, which dated back to 1992, in the Guyana Chronicle. He joined others, such as the unflappable, wise and consistent Vincent Alexander, and Sherwood Lowe, among others, who saw the evils of such a list, and its portent for electoral criminality, finally proven by its facilitation of mass fraud by the political opposition, on March 02. To these honest Guyanese, the daily consistent voice of the coalition as the government should be added, in its call for a sanitised list.

I would be among the first, in supporting Mr. Ming, in calling out anyone who uses his name in a social media attack on any Guyanese, irrespective of who they are; for not only is it unfair, apart from being unprincipled, done without his expressed permission, as he has clearly expressed; but also, given the fact that it can involve the issue of libel.

One must now directly refer to his letter, “Stanley Ming disassociates himself from Facebook post attacking GECOM chair”, in the Guyana Chronicle of July 25, in which he has declared his highest regard for the Madame Chair of the GECOM, Justice Claudette Singh. He is entitled to such view, about any Guyanese that is so adjudged. In this regard, it is his right to such an opinion on the stated premise that, “She has attained her status, as a highly respected member of the legal establishment through years of hard work and dedication to her profession, and is unlikely to compromise her honesty and integrity at this juncture of her life, for anyone.”

Since this is Mr. Ming’s views, publicly expressed, then he is entitled to his viewpoint. In examining his comments, one cannot doubt him on the fact that indeed, Justice Singh has had a distinguished legal career, during which she would have performed sustainably as a jurist of the highest professional standards, inclusive of the integrity which such high judicial office demands. There is no Guyanese, au fait with her judicial life, who will fault such a conclusive picture, as illustrated by Ming, on her active judicial life.

However, it is a section of his view  “…and is unlikely to compromise her honesty and integrity at this juncture of her life, for anyone”,  which is now being challenged, due to events which has surfaced within recent times,  since Justice Singh’s appointment as the GECOM Chairperson.

Undoubtedly, the Executive appointed her because they believed in her integrity, as a Guyanese of such erudite standing, with a well-established personal integrity, as a jurist. One believes that the general public accepted this pole position, therefore supporting her elevation. In fact, it is the coalition which has given her its full support, as a constitutional head of a constitutional and autonomous body, with the right to make decisions as constitutionally mandated, free from any intrusion, influence or intrusion. This contrasts sharply to the brutality displayed by the opposition that must have impacted on the psychological and physical person of the Madame Chair. A bit of diversion, but necessary for the context of Mr. Ming’ statement, the final part, quoted above. The fact is that the Madame Chair’s performance as Head of the GECOM, has fallen from the well-established constitutional standards, as expected. This is the unanimous perception of the general Guyanese public, especially the man-in-the-street. And with good reason, given the salient examples of her decision to abort the house-to-house registration exercise; her shocking decision to also scuttle the responsibility of the Recount Order 60, to arrive at a credible vote; her departure from the constitutional practice of the CEO, in accordance with Article 177(2) b of the Constitution – instead ordering him to present to the commission a report which will include all the fraudulent votes, proven found, during the recount process. Without any controversy, these acts, have been seen as biased, in favour of the PPP/C, in light of the barrage of verbal and mental abuse, that have emanated from that party, its satellites, and its other anti-national support sources. Therefore, in the public’s eyes, she is seen to have caved in to the known relentless, brutal pressures of the political opposition, coupled with those from the international community.

This means that the GECOM Chair is seen as no longer enjoying the confidence of the public, for reasons outlined above. This is a matter, which is about a high stakes’ national election, in which the blatant acts of electoral criminality have been perpetrated on the people of Guyana, thereby distorting the will of the people. In this regard, the Madame Chair had been tasked with the responsibility, of correcting what has clearly been a subversion of the democratic process. Instead, she has failed the nation, pushing it to the very brink of the social precipice.

Although one must agree with the encomium from Mr. Ming, he must understand that such fulsome accolades with regard Ms. Singh, must not be related, and only be confined, to her past endeavours and contributions to national life, with regard her judicial career. This, must also be seen as continuing, in a sustained manner in any post-judicial assignment, inclusive in her present appointment. It is about consistency, and not about past performance.

In other words, she must be judged by those same well-established standards which had adorned her former professional performance at the Bar, during which she was seen as upholding the law, and nothing else but its just tenets. In these extant times, in which she now performs, she has not been seen as adhering to the same lofty ideals and its constitutional bedrock.  At this most perilous time of the nation, these two ideals are needed, more than at any other time of the nation’s history. Unfortunately, it is the public’s opinion that she no longer upholds such ideals. One hopes that Mr. Ming understands this reality, despite the fact that he is entitled to a personal opinion of Ms. Singh’s professional life.

Regards
Aditya Panday