Dear Editor,
Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram appears to be part of an organized group promoting an argument that general elections must be held by March 21, 2019. This is very evident from statements attributed to him in an article in the Guyana Times of January 30, 2019. The said article titled “GECOM must be compelled to hold elections in 90 days – activist” quotes Mr. Ram as saying the following: “The elections has to be held in 90 days (as a result of the successful no-confidence vote) unless there is a two-thirds vote in the National Assembly to extend that period. This is messing around with the Constitution and it is heading down a dangerous and slippery slope.”
Mr. Ram is known to be meticulous in what he says and by no reckoning can be considered as a person who speaks cavalierly. It is for this reason that he has to be called out for spewing what can only be considered as a dangerous position, namely that if general elections are not held by the aforementioned date, that the Government, Cabinet and President loses their legitimacy!
Briefly, I will seek to educate Mr. Ram, though I know he is aware of the facts.
On 3rd January, 2019, the National Assembly met to consider the consequences of the vote of December 21, 2018. At this Sitting, the Honourable Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland announced that in the intervening period, he “received information, both solicited (emphasis mine) and unsolicited, supported by Case law and Practice emanating from other jurisdictions which has raised doubts as to whether the No-confidence Motion was carried.”
Having identified the issues which caused the aforementioned doubt, the Hon. Speaker went on to say that “certain and finite answers to these questions are necessary, (and) …the issues which we now face cause us to look outside of Parliament to find answers.”
Significantly, the Speaker went on to say: “I find it instructive that much of the information provided relate to cases which saw the Courts of other jurisdictions giving guidance to both the Speaker and those National Assemblies concerning the constitutionality of conduct on particular issues.”
The Speaker ended by saying that “Full, final and complete settlement of these issues by a Court of competent jurisdiction will place beyond doubt any question which may exist and serve to give guidance to the Speaker and to the National Assembly for the future.”
Even to a layman, the above is pellucid and the Government acting accordingly has approached the Court for such determination, i.e. whether the Motion was carried and as a result, whether Art. 106. (6) and (7) of the Constitution takes effect, namely resignation of the Cabinet and the holding of elections within three months.
For further avoidance of doubt, at a high-level bilateral meeting between the Government and Opposition on January 9, 2019 the Communique contained the following words: “The President further stated that it is lawful for the Government to engage the Court (and that) … pending the conclusion of the legal proceedings, Parliament remains functional.”
The Ruling of the Hon. Chief Justice delivered on January 31, 2019 does nothing to affect the foregoing given that there remains two other rungs on the legal front, namely the Court of Appeal and finally the CCJ and that the Government has signaled its intention to appeal the C.J’s decision.
Ominously though not unsurprisingly, since the C.J.’s ruling other elements have joined the chorus, peddling the narrative of unconstitutionality of the Government. These include the Private Sector Commission, AmCham, Guyana and even external ones.
This is nothing other than plain mischief that is being propagated.
Yours faithfully,
Ronald Bulkan, M.P.
Minister of Communities
