Dear Editor,
I am thankful for Mr. Ralph Ramkarran’s letter, `At the time of Cari-com intervention the Janet Jagan gov’t was lawfully in place’, published March 12, 2019, and a response to one written by myself.
The honourable Mr. Ralph Ramkarran’s remembrance of me in former pursuits is kind, even with his ad hominem retreats. My mind casts yet again to Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, in which it states, ‘These couchings and these lowly courtesies might fire the blood of ordinary men…Be not fond to think that I bear such rebel blood.’
Our reading of history and lived experiences are on a collision course. But if the esteemed Senior Counsel and former Speaker of the National Assembly finds irrelevant to current circumstances, the Elections Petition/Esther Perreira case which he was unsuccessful at litigating as lead counsel, and in which ruling the then Chief Justice Claudette Singh declared that ‘she possessed no jurisdiction to tell the Executive branch of government to demit office; and that by Doctrine of Necessity there must be a government’, then I bow to his wisdom.
Yet, I find myself unable to genuflect before his submission, because what the Honourable Mr. Ramkarran says in his missive is not as important as what he omits to state. He has gone from CARICOM’s reluctance to intervene in periods past, “then eagerly doing so against a ‘then’ lawful Janet Jagan Government in 1999”.
Then the honourable and agile thinker somersaults to, “In 2001, a few months after, new elections were held. The Government did not seek to unlawfully and unconstitutionally extend its life in office, as the APNU+AFC Government is now doing.”
The honourable Mr. Ramkarran omits that the Herdmanston Accord, which governed the period facilitated by CARICOM, was agreed to by both major political parties, being signed into law, Act No. 1 of 1999, by Janet Jagan, a process which mandated national elections by January 17, 2001.
The honourable Mr. Ramkarran omits to state that the PPP/C— in which he was then a political and legal force— did indeed seek to unlawfully and unconstitutionally extend its life in office.
Why then did the all-party committee set up to deal with post-January, 2001 governance fail before it started its work to facilitate a smooth transition after the Herdmanston Accord expired?
The honourable Mr. Ramkarran omits that when those mandated elections could not be held immediately in January 2001, it was the then GECOM Chairman, Major General (rtd) Joe Singh, who in Decem-ber, 2000, advised the president that elections could not be held before March 19, 2001.
In memory of more recent vintage, the GECOM Chairman, Justice (Retired) James Patterson, likewise has informed His Excellency that elections cannot be held by March 21, 2019. But the honourable Mr. Ramkarran deems this as seeking to “unlawfully and unconstitutionally extend its life in office.”
He will not let us know that in 2001, the then Private Sector Commission had made known to the GECOM that “there were important economic reasons why the elections should be held after the celebration of Mashramani and Phagwah festivals and the Test cricket match against South Africa to be played here was completed.”
The honourable Mr. Ramkarran omits that in the Stabroek News’ January 18, 2001 edition, the PPP/C government declared, “Voluntary government limits on from today” and “the business of the government continues as normal”.
Editor, finally, it has never been the intention of the APNU+AFC government to “unlawfully and unconstitutionally extend its life in office.” But as the PPP/C did in 2000 and 2006, the government, in my humble, personal view, [is] guided by the realities on the ground as articulated by GECOM.
As a matter of fact, in 2011, when the PPP/C lost its parliamentary majority, there was talk about snap elections, which is what in essence a successful No Confidence Motion produces.
Leader of the Alliance For Change, Raphael Trotman, stated in a comment to Stabroek News (December 25, 2011), “While the President has the authority to dissolve Parliament for elections, this power in interpreted in the context of GECOM’s readiness for elections. The dissolution of the House is triggered when the Chairman informs the President that everything is in place for a national election. Unlike other territories, Guyana’s elections management agency does not have the capacity to maintain a position of readiness. This means that the chances for a snap or surprise elections are slim because Parliament would have to vote money, the list would have to be made ready, persons trained etc.”
Yours faithfully,
Sherod Avery Duncan
