Dear Editor,
The letter composed by Professor Justice Duke Pollard in SN of January 24 has been drawn to my attention and I am inclined to conclude that semantics remain the bugbear of our rush to disagree with every action of politicians in our vexed society. Contextually, President Ramotar’s action and Prof Pollard’s reaction are not asymmetrical.
I am persuaded that the President “announced” a date for general and regional elections based on his promise made to his “fellow Guyanese” in early December 2014 when it became clear that the window of opportunity for dialogue with the opposition had been slammed shut in his face following the prorogation of parliament on Nov 11. 2014. Having served three presidents as their principal legal adviser by virtue of Art 112 of the constitution I see no reason to hold that the incumbent may not have addressed the technical issue and timeframes prescribed by Art 61 and Art 69. Most significantly, Art 70 (2) has three words, ie, “at any time”, which authorise the President to honour his undertaking aforementioned and, having regard to the specific time lines set out in the aforementioned articles, he could issue the dissolution proclamation and the proclamation formally “appointing” the election date pursuant to Art 61 which states:
“An election of members of the National Assembly under Art 60 (2) shall be held on such day within three months after every dissolution of Parliament as the President shall appoint by Proclamation…”
While an “announcement” is non specific, an “appointment” of the date is definitive. I need not remind anyone in the legal fraternity that there is a presumption of constitutionality for actions of the state and our President must not be taken to have violated our constitution unless there is conclusive proof to the contrary. We can take comfort in the axiom that the presence of the symptoms of an ailment does not mean that the ailment exists.
Not unlike the eminent Professor, I am not inclined, nor am I permitted, to give an extensive tutorial on constitutional law to the many armchair generals who enjoy the comfort of opinion without the burden of the discomfort of thought.
In the final analysis I submit that President Ramotar has unerringly discharged his electoral responsibility and is on track to honour his constitutional obligations. The prerogative in both episodes is solely his to the exclusion of all others.
Yours faithfully,
Justice Charles R Ramson, SC
Attorney-General and Minister
of Legal Affairs (rtd)
