Dear Editor,
I write with reference to Mr. Andrew Pollard’s letter (SN of August 28th) rebutting Mr. Ramkarran’s `CCJ has failed Guyana, it’s now up to Gecom Chair’ (SN August 25th ).
The CCJ’s ruling has been very sound based on traditional court practices. And, Mr. Pollard’s letter nicely explains and reinforces the meaning. His letter limited itself to just a rebuttal of Mr Ramkarran’s article.
However, I would like to draw out Mr. Pollard on a not all together unrelated question: Whether the ruling of CCJ has been complied with? Mr. Pollard rightly says: ‘The Constitution spells it out: it is the president’s duty to set the date of the election’. Has the president done so? (bearing in mind the CCJ referenced the constitution – and clearly implied the date should be no later than Sept 18th).
Alright, the president says he is waiting on the advice of Gecom. Is Gecom performing its function in accordance with the Constitution? Is Gecom by its very setup and composition – having politicians on its Board – designed for obfuscation and failure, and therefore unable to fulfill its obligation and duty under the constitution? Is there a perception of collusion between the president and Patterson’s Gecom?
Mr Pollard, none of these other issues, all major ones that together explain the breakdown of Constitutional rule in the State have ever bothered you enough to do pen and paper – but only when a member of your profession seems to have crossed a line you rise from your rocker to do a stern reproach. Is that an inherent failure and fault of yours, Mr. Pollard?
What a columnist writes provokes; not violations of the Constitution and breakdowns in governance of the State.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
