Dear Editor,
Interest in the issue of the no-confidence motion and elections as a consequence, goes beyond APNU+AFC, PPP, David Granger and Bharrat Jagdeo; it is of interest to the people of Guyana and all those who are likely to be impacted, regionally and further afield. As a people, we must be cognisant of this and strive to protect the integrity of our country in order to maintain its stability and the stability of our nation and region. In this regard, it is important to respect the instruments that guide day-to-day management of society.
As Guyana struggles through this period of a successful no-confidence vote with politicians battling to shape public opinion and influence domestic and international responses, there is growing evidence of deliberate misinformation and efforts to misguide the nation emanating from various quarters. The extent to which this is occurring is alarming as it threatens our ability to pursue a society built on strong moral values and integrity. We must seek truth and, in so doing, allow primary sourced information, hard evidence, not fiction, uninformed or partisan opinions, inform those with interest in Guyana successfully navigating itself to restore constitutional normalcy.
The situation before us goes beyond the casting of a ballot but encompasses the passion, will and determination of a people. For some, it is evident that ethnic domination is more important than welding the society and it is for this reason the following areas of concern are brought to attention. Clarification is needed on the various postures observed to be potential threats and creating confusion in the minds of most.
The opposition and its surrogates deem the president and government to be “illegal.” If we accept this to be true, then the relevant questions are: a) Can an “illegal” president and government make a legal decision to dissolve parliament and name a date for election? b) If the declared “illegal” government can do so, then where is this claim supported by constitutional evidence or court ruling?
Guyana is a nation of laws and the novelty of this successful confidence vote, which has created challenges to governance, must not see us failing to seek constitutional guidance every step of the way to ensure that we restore normalcy and set proper judicial precedents. In a nation torn apart by many misleading political claims passing as ‘truths’, it is important that only one truth exist and guide us forward. In this context, that is best determined by judicial interpretation. Some will claim delaying tactics even as some get tired of the legal battles, but the importance of establishing truth and proper understanding are priceless pillars in society if we are to restore constitutional normalcy. No group in our society must come out of this election process feeling they are cheated, bullied, lied to and that their rights are violated.
Society is being influenced by a daily media diet from various sources to believe that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), in its decision on June 18th, and its Consequential Order on July 12th, ruled that elections must be held on or before September 18th. The relevant question is asked of those advancing this position: Can you provide primary evidence of these allegations made? No conjectures, no opinions, no spin, only hard pointed evidence of this ruling from the primary source.
The position is advanced ad nauseum that the life of parliament has come to an end after September 18th. This writer seeks validation of this claim from a primary source, i.e. from the Constitution and law where it is prescribed to be so. No conjectures, no spin, no interpretation outside of judicial ruling.
It is claimed on a daily basis that where the three months deadline to hold an election has passed after the passage of this successful no-confidence vote, an election can be held without activation of Article 106 in the Constitution. Those who propagate this are asked to provide the relevant primary sourced evidence where this is indeed so. Where in the Guyana Constitution, laws or the CCJ’s ruling is this stipulated? Our people deserve one truth for there can be no more.
There are many among us who advocate and demand that the president must call a date for elections without following through with the stipulations in Article 106(7). The question is asked of them: How can the president be encouraged to breach the Constitution and where is primary evidence to support him doing so legally?
Those who support the opposition leader’s statement that he is not returning to parliament to grant a 2/3 majority vote to extend the life of government in keeping with Article 106(7) and as stipulated by the CCJ, are asked, along with Mr Jagdeo, to provide the primary source evidence where his decision is supported and is not just a matter of politicking. Would judicial ruling on this matter bring clarity to this issue and guide him and all others’ position on what is constitutionally required of the leader of the opposition in restoring constitutional normalcy?
Those who desire to respond to this letter are reminded that the quest here is to restore truth in our society, to build a foundation where social and political morality is held in check and the powers that be, whether in the government, opposition or elsewhere, do not exploit the trust and simplicity of our people, and our people are held to a level of accountability that would build a just Guyana. One that will serve all well. Exposing lies and upholding truth are serious issues. These have implications that determine whether we will proceed in one accord via a lawful and orderly manner. They also determine how well we de-escalate simmering ethnic tensions and signs of growing division, and set the right examples for our youth.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
