Dear Editor,
The Constitution of Guyana is supreme and where controversy as to its interpretation exists or arises the Judiciary is the ultimate determining body for interpretation and legally binding application. What exists in the Guyana Constitution is provision for a confidence motion (no-confidence) against a sitting government. But what is really absent are extant laws or protocols detailing what happens after that motion is passed.
In the absence of such, social commentators guided by various understandings, individual and other interests, are attempting to inundate society with various views emanating from different countries on how the situation should be handled here. One such view speaks of applying “caretaker conventions” which could give the impression and leave readers to believe that there is a universal convention established by an international organisation binding Guyana to adherence.
What the research shows is countries that have constitutional provision for a no-confidence motion have various responses after a successful confidence vote. These include laws or conventions, based on the characteristic of the society, coming into play after a successful confidence vote. Guyana has no such provision whether by way of legislation or convention.
In Guyana we are treading new ground and we must do so cautiously ever cognisant of the need for stability at all levels of our political operations, whether domestic, regional or international. The Government of Guyana at this period must have a heightened awareness of the importance and need to provide reassurance even as the public, trade union, business sector and regional interests express concerns.
Had the 2014 confidence motion brought against the Donald Ramotar government been allowed a vote and considered successful (even though challenged), Guyana would have been facing this same dilemma on how to proceed. And notwithstanding, politicking would have had to place national interest and stability at the forefront of our efforts to move forward in a way consistent with the clearly evident stability intent of the Constitution, which is supreme. In a similar way the Ramotar government would have been faced with political decisions as opposed to lawful decisions that require adjudication in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.
I am reiterating, very strongly, my call for public education on the Constitution; for the Rule of Law to guide our daily management of Government affairs and that of the Opposition.
I am mindful that the Opposition is itself treading on new ground. They are likewise urged to be mindful of the absence of appropriate laws and guidelines detailing how they too are affected by the confidence vote. Both Government and Opposition at this point in time must distinguish themselves with statesmanship. They are reminded that they have equal responsibility to ensure that Guyana comes out of this era not as a divided people, not with an exacerbation of ethnic tensions and without disruption of our ability to exploit our new economic exploration of oil and gas for the benefit of all.
There is no question that surrogates acting on both sides, whether organised or not, are adding to the discourse some of which fuel tension, confusion, and uncertainty even as they seek to offer solutions and guidelines, all of which do not serve a national interest but can be seen as steeped in partisanship. In this context, Government along with the Opposition must be able to shut out the noise and put together the best constitutional minds and the Social Partners as stipulated in the Constitution and international convention to aid in navigating this new terrain. This engagement must involve serious deliberation. It is only in the presence of lawfulness that peace and stability will be achieved.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
