Dear Editor,
Over the last few months, or so, numerous commentators across the spectrum of the media have directly and indirectly addressed, or attempted to, the reasoning behind Mr Granger and his administration’s obstinacy in not adhering to the rule of law and complying with the no-confidence defeat. These commentaries comprised a mix of diverging and converging positions, revolving mostly around (1) whether the government which was elected for a five-year term should be allowed to complete it; and (2) whether the ensuing elections require house-to-house registration to derive a ‘credible’ voters’ list. Like others, I take the view that both, the arguments for completion of the five years in office, and need for house-to-house registration, are severely flawed and contrary to provisions within the constitution and other relevant authority.
To begin, the President and his administration, as well as some of their supporters have chosen to interpret Art. 70 (3) solely as guaranteeing the government five years in office. They have ignored the provisions in 70 (1),(2) which deal with ‘prorogation’ and ‘dissolution’ of Parliament, and the phrase, ‘unless sooner dissolved’ in 70(3). Furthermore, they have completely cast their eyes away from the confidence/no-confidence motion under 106(6). Clearly, any of these provisions, once effectively triggered, destroys the five-year term.
While, the constitutional provisions in the preceding paragraph may by virtue of their technicality pose problems for many, it is difficult to fathom the cries for a ‘credible’ list of voters. Why the insistence on house-to-house registration when we have had in place ongoing/continuous registration for some years now? The pundits, including current and past GECOM officials, have stated that the list can be cleansed/updated without engaging in house-to-house registration activities. A perusal of the media would reveal several commentaries on how a credible list could be efficiently produced. It begs the question therefore, as to why the government has held steadfastly to the notion of house-to-house registration. The response(s) to this question has evolved at least three possible interrelated reasons: First, the house-to-house registration would allow the government to spend the five billion dollars earmarked for such/similar purposes. This would have an added benefit, in that, mostly handpicked agents to carry out the exercises will derive incomes, and potentially, many may see the cash as incentives for votes. Second, there might be many foreigners who are seen as potential supporters who may provide other political benefits. Third, the exercise may lead to deregistration of many potential voters. For example, many names may not be included if the agents don’t find those persons on their visits, or if the agents failed to pay second visits. Herein lies a fourth possibility, i.e., the Opposition parties may not approve the ensuing list as credible, thus leading to further delay which the President and his administration have been pushing for ever since the Chief Justice declared the no-confidence vote carried.
In a nutshell, it is unclear why the President and his administration remain obstinate despite the long awaited final CCJ pronouncement(s) and recommendations. The shock of the no-confidence defeat should have been over by now. It’s time for the fallen administration to accept the reality and engage the Opposition to arrive at an early date for elections; it’s time we move on with our national development objectives for optimum benefit for all. In essence, Mr President, let us give our fledgling democracy a chance to mature.
Yours faithfully,
Ronald Singh
(Barrister & Solicitor)
