Dear Editor,
Now that M Maxwell has acknowledged his errant conduct in misrepresenting the constitution ‘Wrong version of the constitution was quoted’ (SN, December 29), he needs to inform this nation how his call for a new constitution through referendum can be realised in the absence of the present constitution and its attendant laws, as requested via letter ‘Constitutional conversation’ (SN, December 12).
The constitution cannot be compared to the constitutions under the colonial authority and apartheid South Africa. Here’s why. Our constitution had the involvement of the people and their representatives. The political parties, social organisations and individuals, inclusive of the PPP, PNC, WPA, Guyana Trades Union Congress and Guyana Human Rights Association have participated in the reform exercise. The Constitutional Reform Commission, which included Ralph Ramkarran and Rupert Roopnaraine, took its hearings to the administrative regions, including the remote areas.
As the supreme law, the constitution guides our relations and outlines how the nation’s affairs shall be managed and its people treated. And given that ours is a society built on representative government, it means elected and government officials are servants of the people and are accountable to the people. There is no article in the constitution that places the president, cabinet or any individual above the people or the instrument.
This constitution empowers the people in all facets of life. From vesting sovereignty (Article 9); Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual (Title 1); the president and cabinet shall be collectively responsible therefor to Parliament (Article 106 (2)); vote of confidence in the executive (Article 106 (6)); decentralisation of power and economic development in regional and local governments (Article 75, 76, 77); even to the independent judiciary ( Article 122A); and supremacy of parliament over the president and cabinet (Article 50). What is required in some instances is legislation to strengthen articles, and our lawmakers should be nudged to act.
Articles 50 and 106 (2) bring to the fore the misinterpretation that the president is supreme in relation to the parliament and by extension the people. If one is subject to report to a forum one cannot be above the forum. That is basic logic. Yet this misguided thought is presented in constitutional conversations, which in itself is enabling the holder of the office to mismanage the nation’s affairs, disregard the rule of law and trample on the rights of citizens. Instead of having an executive that governs consistent with the rule of law, what the nation is witnessing is rule by the lawless, while persons are being told that constitutionally such excesses are permitted!
With regard to prorogation, such is a function of the Westminster parliamentary system this nation adopted. It is a part of our law, legal, legitimate and valid. My disagreement with the president’s misapplication of the article is public knowledge. Laws are not written in vacuum. They are guided by the culture in the
society and underpinned by spirit and intent. It is unwise to blame the constitution for the president’s misapplication of prorogation. Doing so is similar to ascribing blame to the constitution for the offensive utterances of Attorney General Anil Nandlall given that it enshrines the right to freedom of expression.
What is missing in constitutional conversations is an understanding that where there exist rights, power or authority there is a corresponding responsibility anchored in the constitution’s spirit and intent, among which is non-infringement, non-abuse of privilege.
Advocates for reform or a new constitution have yet to bring any Bill or partner with any lawmaker to realise amendments to the areas they consider repugnant, even though the constitution enables this. Those who think the constitution is illegal, de facto or de jure are still to use the constitutional court to seek redress. And together there is silence on the non-working of the parliamentary Standing Committee for Constitutional Reform.
As a trade unionist the citizens/workers are urged to engage in necessary activism to ensure good governance, which includes their rights being respected and the rule of law upheld. The constitution is not antagonistic to the people’s wellbeing. Antagonism comes from those elected and government officials who fail to uphold the instrument and those who find reasons to justify their conduct.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
