Guyana Focus
future ahead
Just when it appeared that conditions couldn’t get any worse, Guyana now faces a tumultuous and uncertain 2019, fuelled by potential political turbulence.
A shock no-confidence vote on December 21, which effectively toppled the fragile ruling APNU-AFC alliance, has set the stage for general elections by March 2019 – that is, 90 days after the vote – more than a year earlier than the official due date for elections.
But while the government immediately conceded defeat following the vote, it has since backtracked on its position and challenged the validity of the vote. The matter is now heading to court after the Speaker of the National Assembly refused to review the no confidence decision on January 3, much to the dismay of the government.
The spurious reasons for challenging the no-confidence decision, largely seen as a delaying tactic by the government not to resign, has the opposition PPP, which sponsored the no-confidence motion, up in arms.
But at the same time, President David Granger and opposition leader, Bharat Jagdeo are scheduled for talks on January 9, with the expectation of a peaceful solution... though unlikely. It is unlikely that the PPP would concede to anything else but general elections, stemming from the confidence it gained by its majority victory at the country’s Local Government Elections held in November 2018.
Conversely, the APNU-AFC coalition would want to hold on to power as long as it can, especially at a time when the prospects of oil revenues could reverse the country’s fortunes – from poverty to affluence.
Should the government choose to refuse to resign, Guyanese could, to put in the context of the Chinese curse, live in interesting times in 2019 – a year that will be marked by disorder and conflict.
Given the political history of the country, it would not be unusual if the year is punctuated by politically motivated violence, racial disturbances and an increase in crime. This could enhance the exodus of Guyanese to foreign shores.
It would also not be out of the question for massive strikes led by trade unions which are sympathetic to APNU, as well as involvement by the army and police to ensure that the government stays in power.
The ensuing instability could detract foreign investors who have been attracted to the country’s massive oil resources which have provided hope for an economically bright future for the country.
The probability of general elections will create internal struggles among the major parties and see the emergence of new fringe parties. Although President Granger has indicated that he will remain APNU’s Presidential candidate, he is battling cancer, and health issues could very well diminish his chances.
Ironically, the WPA, a minority component of the APNU-AFC coalition, has already stirred the pot by calling for a say in the Presidential selection process. .
In the meanwhile, the PPP could face even greater struggles to name a Presidential candidate who will be the “sous chef” of former President Jagdeo who is ineligible to hold the office after serving two terms.
Incidentally, of the two major political parties, the PPP has suffered the most from defections by dissatisfied party members seeking a piece of the power pie. Current Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo and National Security Minister Khemraj Ramjattan are two current examples.
Ironically, AFC back-bencher Charrandas Persaud voted with the PPP on the no-confidence motion to bring down the APNU-AFC coalition.
Coming on the heels of potential general elections is the announcement of a new political party, headed by former two-time Speaker of the National Assembly, Ralph Ramkarran, another disgruntled former PPP member.
While fringe parties have never been successful in Guyana, the AFC which deemed itself as a third force at its inception, managed to change the balance of power, largely by attracting votes from the PPP and teaming up with APNU to form the government. This party is likely to fade into oblivion should the government resign as it has not lived up to its expectations as a third force.
In the meanwhile, Ramkarran’s party and any other fringe parties which may come to the fore, are unlikely to change the outcome of general elections, leaving the battle for power between the PPP and the PNC.
Given the unstable political conditions, investors are left in a lurch as to whether a change in political power will void arrangements entered into by the current government.
Shortly prior to the no-confidence motion, the government also presented its 2019 budget in late November, which could become meaningless if power changes hands. The opposition PPP was in disagreement with several proposed budget items.
The optimistic budget projected buoyant economic growth of 4.6%, compared to estimated growth of 3.4 percent in 2018. If the productive process is disrupted because of chaos, this growth target would not be achieved.
While domestic political conditions are already problematic, Guyana will face another geopolitical headache stemming from its long-standing border controversy with Venezuela. Within less than a day following the no-confidence vote, a Venezuelan navy intercepted a ship exploring for oil on behalf of Exxon Mobil Corp in Guyanese waters.
Ironically, while it is hoped that the US would protect the interests of Exxon and consequently Guyana in the event of a confrontation, the Venezuelans subtly displayed the power of its ally Russia, which in early December landed two supersonic bombers, accompanied by two military planes on its soil. Venezuela has also reportedly given Russia permission to set up a military base on its territory.
Following a US statement over the illegality of the interception of the Exxon ship, Venezuela accused the US of intervening in its internal affairs. Although Venezuela’s act of aggression could be deemed provocative, the chances of confrontation cannot be ruled out. At the very least, it has created some fear of a potentially negative outcome.
Regardless of the outcome of the political hiatus, corruption and crime will remain a major problem. While the government has taken steps to fight corruption, the majority of its efforts focused on uncovering improprieties under the former administration, corruption under the current administration continued unabated.
Crime will also remain uncontrollable during the year. Not only has the police failed to curtail crime but they also lost the trust of the people who regard many of them as common criminals – tainting the integrity of the entire police force.
The drug trade will also continue to flourish, even though the country’s drug enforcement units will step up their efforts to keep it under control.
What is interesting to note is that no major foreign power has issued an opinion on the current political situation in Guyana. This silence is unlike what happened in 2015, when then President Donald Ramotar prorogued parliament following a no-confidence vote initiated by Moses Nagamotooo who paradoxically was on the losing end as acting President this time around.
But that does not negate potential interference in the electoral process should new elections be held. The US, in particular, has a lot at stake in the oil industry and may very well have an opinion once the dust settles.
In the meantime, anxious Guyanese on both sides of the political fence will be hoping for a positive outcome for their respective parties, and praying that that conditions wouldn’t deteriorate.
The spurious reasons for challenging the no-confidence decision, largely seen as a delaying tactic by the government not to resign, has the opposition PPP, which sponsored the no-confidence motion, up in arms.
But at the same time, President David Granger and opposition leader, Bharat Jagdeo are scheduled for talks on January 9, with the expectation of a peaceful solution... though unlikely. It is unlikely that the PPP would concede to anything else but general elections, stemming from the confidence it gained by its majority victory at the country’s Local Government Elections held in November 2018.
Conversely, the APNU-AFC coalition would want to hold on to power as long as it can, especially at a time when the prospects of oil revenues could reverse the country’s fortunes – from poverty to affluence.
Should the government choose to refuse to resign, Guyanese could, to put in the context of the Chinese curse, live in interesting times in 2019 – a year that will be marked by disorder and conflict.
Given the political history of the country, it would not be unusual if the year is punctuated by politically motivated violence, racial disturbances and an increase in crime. This could enhance the exodus of Guyanese to foreign shores.
It would also not be out of the question for massive strikes led by trade unions which are sympathetic to APNU, as well as involvement by the army and police to ensure that the government stays in power.
The ensuing instability could detract foreign investors who have been attracted to the country’s massive oil resources which have provided hope for an economically bright future for the country.
The probability of general elections will create internal struggles among the major parties and see the emergence of new fringe parties. Although President Granger has indicated that he will remain APNU’s Presidential candidate, he is battling cancer, and health issues could very well diminish his chances.
Ironically, the WPA, a minority component of the APNU-AFC coalition, has already stirred the pot by calling for a say in the Presidential selection process. .
In the meanwhile, the PPP could face even greater struggles to name a Presidential candidate who will be the “sous chef” of former President Jagdeo who is ineligible to hold the office after serving two terms.
Incidentally, of the two major political parties, the PPP has suffered the most from defections by dissatisfied party members seeking a piece of the power pie. Current Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo and National Security Minister Khemraj Ramjattan are two current examples.
Ironically, AFC back-bencher Charrandas Persaud voted with the PPP on the no-confidence motion to bring down the APNU-AFC coalition.
Coming on the heels of potential general elections is the announcement of a new political party, headed by former two-time Speaker of the National Assembly, Ralph Ramkarran, another disgruntled former PPP member.
While fringe parties have never been successful in Guyana, the AFC which deemed itself as a third force at its inception, managed to change the balance of power, largely by attracting votes from the PPP and teaming up with APNU to form the government. This party is likely to fade into oblivion should the government resign as it has not lived up to its expectations as a third force.
In the meanwhile, Ramkarran’s party and any other fringe parties which may come to the fore, are unlikely to change the outcome of general elections, leaving the battle for power between the PPP and the PNC.
Given the unstable political conditions, investors are left in a lurch as to whether a change in political power will void arrangements entered into by the current government.
Shortly prior to the no-confidence motion, the government also presented its 2019 budget in late November, which could become meaningless if power changes hands. The opposition PPP was in disagreement with several proposed budget items.
The optimistic budget projected buoyant economic growth of 4.6%, compared to estimated growth of 3.4 percent in 2018. If the productive process is disrupted because of chaos, this growth target would not be achieved.
While domestic political conditions are already problematic, Guyana will face another geopolitical headache stemming from its long-standing border controversy with Venezuela. Within less than a day following the no-confidence vote, a Venezuelan navy intercepted a ship exploring for oil on behalf of Exxon Mobil Corp in Guyanese waters.
Ironically, while it is hoped that the US would protect the interests of Exxon and consequently Guyana in the event of a confrontation, the Venezuelans subtly displayed the power of its ally Russia, which in early December landed two supersonic bombers, accompanied by two military planes on its soil. Venezuela has also reportedly given Russia permission to set up a military base on its territory.
Following a US statement over the illegality of the interception of the Exxon ship, Venezuela accused the US of intervening in its internal affairs. Although Venezuela’s act of aggression could be deemed provocative, the chances of confrontation cannot be ruled out. At the very least, it has created some fear of a potentially negative outcome.
Regardless of the outcome of the political hiatus, corruption and crime will remain a major problem. While the government has taken steps to fight corruption, the majority of its efforts focused on uncovering improprieties under the former administration, corruption under the current administration continued unabated.
Crime will also remain uncontrollable during the year. Not only has the police failed to curtail crime but they also lost the trust of the people who regard many of them as common criminals – tainting the integrity of the entire police force.
The drug trade will also continue to flourish, even though the country’s drug enforcement units will step up their efforts to keep it under control.
What is interesting to note is that no major foreign power has issued an opinion on the current political situation in Guyana. This silence is unlike what happened in 2015, when then President Donald Ramotar prorogued parliament following a no-confidence vote initiated by Moses Nagamotooo who paradoxically was on the losing end as acting President this time around.
But that does not negate potential interference in the electoral process should new elections be held. The US, in particular, has a lot at stake in the oil industry and may very well have an opinion once the dust settles.
In the meantime, anxious Guyanese on both sides of the political fence will be hoping for a positive outcome for their respective parties, and praying that that conditions wouldn’t deteriorate.
Georgetown – Government went ahead with its scheduled Cabinet meeting on Tuesday despite a constitutional requirement that says the Cabinet inclusive of the President must resign following the passage of a no-confidence motion.
That motion was approved on December 21st following a crucial vote by then government parliamentarian Charrandass Persaud, who supported the opposition-led motion. Since the passage of the motion, Cabinet has met as per normal, according to the Stabroek News.
Government, which initially indicated that it would abide by the constitutional provisions after the motion was approved by a vote of 33 to 32, has since challenged the outcome, saying that 34 votes were needed and that Persaud was ineligible to vote as a member of the National Assembly. It has since moved to the court to settle questions about the legality of the approval of the motion as well as for orders to set aside its enforcement and to allow the administration to remain in office.
“Cabinet meets every Tuesday,” Stabroek News reported Leader of coalition partner Alliance for Change (AFC) Raphael Trotman as saying when asked.
According to Article 106 (6) of the Constitution, “The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.”
Further, Article 106 (7) states, “Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine, and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the elections.”
Attorney Christopher Ram, in a recent letter to Stabroek News insisted that resignation under Article 106 (6) brings to a halt the Cabinet’s functions, including aiding and advising the President in the general direction and control of the Government, proposing legislation, reviewing of contracts over fifteen million dollars and the making of appointments. “They can no longer meet as a Cabinet but there is nothing to prevent the former members meeting and offering advice to the President informally,” he said.
Stabroek News reported its sources saying that Cabinet continues to meet and will be operating as normal. One of those sources reportedly said that since the passage of the motion, Cabinet has met numerous times while another insisted that Cabinet will not be resigning, quoting: “We are the government and we have to function. There is a budget to expend.”
Ram, in his letter, said that while the Constitution is silent on the specific date for the resignation under Article 106 (6), that resignation seems to be “automatic, or intended to be with immediate effect.”
He pointed out that Article 232 (9) provides that the Interpretation and General Clauses Act (ICGA) shall apply for the purpose of interpreting the Constitution. “Since no time is prescribed therefore, section 39 of the ICGA provides that ‘where no time is prescribed within which anything shall be done, such thing shall be done with all convenient speed,’” he said before using the example of the no confidence motion by Conservative Party Leader Margaret Thatcher against the Labour Party Government led by Prime Minister James Callaghan in the UK Parliament in 1979 to strengthen his argument.
He said that while the term “Government” is defined in the Constitution only to mean Government of Guyana “it is clear that the term must include the President who under Article 89 – Establishment of office of President of the Constitution is vested with several roles: Head of State, supreme executive authority and Commander in Chief of the country’s armed forces. The President also has a number of functions and powers including the appointment of Ministers and the allocation of portfolios; presiding over Cabinet meetings; appointing parliamentary secretaries and an Attorney General; exercising the Prerogative of Mercy; appointing judges, including the Chancellor and the Chief Justice.”
The President’s functions are clearly diminished under Article 106 (6) but he still remains the head of Government, Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. “As a practical matter he can no longer perform some of the functions identified in the preceding paragraph while his tenure as President automatically comes to an end when the person elected President at the next election takes office,” Ram pointed out.
“Decisions of the Government are made at the Cabinet level and with no Cabinet to give directions, only routine and on-going matters at the date of the resignation can be executed,” he argued.
“While the explicit and mandatory language of Article 106 (6) brings the life of the Cabinet to an end, the Constitution recognises that there can be no vacuum in the executive arm of the State. For that reason, Article 106 (7) provides for the continuing role of the Ministers and the President until fresh elections are held within three months and it is at that point that the Ministers are required to resign without any further discretion or action. Resign in this case seems to mean voluntarily leave office and as is clear, any failure or refusal by the Government to resign does not mean that they can stay in office until they do. To take it further, since no notice of resignation is required under paragraph (7) of Article 106, it seems a reasonable inference that none is required under paragraph (6) of the Article either,” he pointed out.
Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran has also argued that the Cabinet ought to resign. He said that by not resigning, President David Granger and his Cabinet are unlawfully holding on to office and he contends that if the courts allow even a temporary respite from compliance with the constitutional provisions triggered after the passage of a no-confidence motion on December 21st in the National Assembly, they would be sanctioning an “illegality.”
“Until the (no-confidence motion) is declared by the court to have been unlawfully passed, it remains valid and binding and time is running,” Ramkarran, a former two-term Speaker of the National Assembly and former long serving member of the PPP, wrote in his Conversation Tree column published in Sunday’s edition of the Sunday Stabroek.
“Not yet having acted in compliance with Article 106(6) by resigning, the Cabinet including the President are unlawfully holding on to office. A court would be approbating this illegality if it allows even a temporary respite from compliance with Article 106(6), especially having regard to the fact that it is not the end of the life of the Government,” he said.
Both Ram and Ramkarran have expressed the view that given the passage of the motion the government now has to assume a caretaker role.
Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo at a press conference on December 24th stressed that with the passage of the no-confidence motion, the APNU+AFC government has “diminished authority” and can only function as a caretaker government until such time as fresh elections are held.
That motion was approved on December 21st following a crucial vote by then government parliamentarian Charrandass Persaud, who supported the opposition-led motion. Since the passage of the motion, Cabinet has met as per normal, according to the Stabroek News.
Government, which initially indicated that it would abide by the constitutional provisions after the motion was approved by a vote of 33 to 32, has since challenged the outcome, saying that 34 votes were needed and that Persaud was ineligible to vote as a member of the National Assembly. It has since moved to the court to settle questions about the legality of the approval of the motion as well as for orders to set aside its enforcement and to allow the administration to remain in office.
“Cabinet meets every Tuesday,” Stabroek News reported Leader of coalition partner Alliance for Change (AFC) Raphael Trotman as saying when asked.
According to Article 106 (6) of the Constitution, “The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.”
Further, Article 106 (7) states, “Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine, and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the elections.”
Attorney Christopher Ram, in a recent letter to Stabroek News insisted that resignation under Article 106 (6) brings to a halt the Cabinet’s functions, including aiding and advising the President in the general direction and control of the Government, proposing legislation, reviewing of contracts over fifteen million dollars and the making of appointments. “They can no longer meet as a Cabinet but there is nothing to prevent the former members meeting and offering advice to the President informally,” he said.
Stabroek News reported its sources saying that Cabinet continues to meet and will be operating as normal. One of those sources reportedly said that since the passage of the motion, Cabinet has met numerous times while another insisted that Cabinet will not be resigning, quoting: “We are the government and we have to function. There is a budget to expend.”
Ram, in his letter, said that while the Constitution is silent on the specific date for the resignation under Article 106 (6), that resignation seems to be “automatic, or intended to be with immediate effect.”
He pointed out that Article 232 (9) provides that the Interpretation and General Clauses Act (ICGA) shall apply for the purpose of interpreting the Constitution. “Since no time is prescribed therefore, section 39 of the ICGA provides that ‘where no time is prescribed within which anything shall be done, such thing shall be done with all convenient speed,’” he said before using the example of the no confidence motion by Conservative Party Leader Margaret Thatcher against the Labour Party Government led by Prime Minister James Callaghan in the UK Parliament in 1979 to strengthen his argument.
He said that while the term “Government” is defined in the Constitution only to mean Government of Guyana “it is clear that the term must include the President who under Article 89 – Establishment of office of President of the Constitution is vested with several roles: Head of State, supreme executive authority and Commander in Chief of the country’s armed forces. The President also has a number of functions and powers including the appointment of Ministers and the allocation of portfolios; presiding over Cabinet meetings; appointing parliamentary secretaries and an Attorney General; exercising the Prerogative of Mercy; appointing judges, including the Chancellor and the Chief Justice.”
The President’s functions are clearly diminished under Article 106 (6) but he still remains the head of Government, Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. “As a practical matter he can no longer perform some of the functions identified in the preceding paragraph while his tenure as President automatically comes to an end when the person elected President at the next election takes office,” Ram pointed out.
“Decisions of the Government are made at the Cabinet level and with no Cabinet to give directions, only routine and on-going matters at the date of the resignation can be executed,” he argued.
“While the explicit and mandatory language of Article 106 (6) brings the life of the Cabinet to an end, the Constitution recognises that there can be no vacuum in the executive arm of the State. For that reason, Article 106 (7) provides for the continuing role of the Ministers and the President until fresh elections are held within three months and it is at that point that the Ministers are required to resign without any further discretion or action. Resign in this case seems to mean voluntarily leave office and as is clear, any failure or refusal by the Government to resign does not mean that they can stay in office until they do. To take it further, since no notice of resignation is required under paragraph (7) of Article 106, it seems a reasonable inference that none is required under paragraph (6) of the Article either,” he pointed out.
Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran has also argued that the Cabinet ought to resign. He said that by not resigning, President David Granger and his Cabinet are unlawfully holding on to office and he contends that if the courts allow even a temporary respite from compliance with the constitutional provisions triggered after the passage of a no-confidence motion on December 21st in the National Assembly, they would be sanctioning an “illegality.”
“Until the (no-confidence motion) is declared by the court to have been unlawfully passed, it remains valid and binding and time is running,” Ramkarran, a former two-term Speaker of the National Assembly and former long serving member of the PPP, wrote in his Conversation Tree column published in Sunday’s edition of the Sunday Stabroek.
“Not yet having acted in compliance with Article 106(6) by resigning, the Cabinet including the President are unlawfully holding on to office. A court would be approbating this illegality if it allows even a temporary respite from compliance with Article 106(6), especially having regard to the fact that it is not the end of the life of the Government,” he said.
Both Ram and Ramkarran have expressed the view that given the passage of the motion the government now has to assume a caretaker role.
Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo at a press conference on December 24th stressed that with the passage of the no-confidence motion, the APNU+AFC government has “diminished authority” and can only function as a caretaker government until such time as fresh elections are held.
no-confidence vote
Georgetown – While the politicians are busy trying to hold on to power and acting outside of the constitution, the economy is slowing and investments will be at standstill. This was noted by attorney-at-law, Christopher Ram.
Ram made his view known during a recent interview as reported by Kaieteur News. He said that it is unfortunate that following the passage of a No-Confidence motion against the APNU+AFC government, the National Assembly is still to be dissolved and there seem to be no intention by the government to set a date for elections soon.
Ram opined that the APNU+AFC’s current course of action – in heading to the court, trying to nullify the no-confidence vote – is a threat to democracy and a violation of the constitution.
“There is no reason why the country should not be preparing for elections,” said Ram.
The attorney said that all the legal action being taken to the court in relations to the No- Confidence motion is frivolous and optimistic.
“If an action was to be brought, it should have been one with substance, but these challenges are simply efforts to try to hold on to power.”
Ram continued, “I understand that more and more actions would come, this all seems to be delay tactics, and it can reach the stage where it is an abuse of the court.”
Ram said businessmen should be concerned about what is happening because, “this can shut down business completely.”
Another Attorney, Charles Ramson Jr., who is a member of the People’s Progressive Party, had similar sentiments.
Ramson said that the APNU+AFC Government’s reluctance to call General and Regional Elections within the three-month period as prescribed by the Constitution of Guyana will send a bad signal to foreign and domestic investors. Therefore, the judiciary should not allow itself to be used as a tool to delay the setting of a date.
Ramson said that Guyana desperately needs foreign investment, especially in the new oil and gas sector. He said that all investors being sought need stability as a precondition for their investments.
He said that the uncertainty surrounding the holding of elections does not support stability. He said too that this can cause Guyana’s risk profile to increase, which in turn increases the baseline entry percentage as a return on investment.
Ramson said if the government is – as it has indicated – determined to go to the court on the issue of the No-Confidence Motion, the court, cognizant of the provisions in the Constitution, which prescribes a timeframe of three months for an election to be held, can, and ought to expedite the determination all the way to the CCJ, if necessary, well in advance of that timeframe.
Ramson said that the case, once filed, will test the responsibility, independence and wisdom of the office holders of the judiciary.
Ram made his view known during a recent interview as reported by Kaieteur News. He said that it is unfortunate that following the passage of a No-Confidence motion against the APNU+AFC government, the National Assembly is still to be dissolved and there seem to be no intention by the government to set a date for elections soon.
Ram opined that the APNU+AFC’s current course of action – in heading to the court, trying to nullify the no-confidence vote – is a threat to democracy and a violation of the constitution.
“There is no reason why the country should not be preparing for elections,” said Ram.
The attorney said that all the legal action being taken to the court in relations to the No- Confidence motion is frivolous and optimistic.
“If an action was to be brought, it should have been one with substance, but these challenges are simply efforts to try to hold on to power.”
Ram continued, “I understand that more and more actions would come, this all seems to be delay tactics, and it can reach the stage where it is an abuse of the court.”
Ram said businessmen should be concerned about what is happening because, “this can shut down business completely.”
Another Attorney, Charles Ramson Jr., who is a member of the People’s Progressive Party, had similar sentiments.
Ramson said that the APNU+AFC Government’s reluctance to call General and Regional Elections within the three-month period as prescribed by the Constitution of Guyana will send a bad signal to foreign and domestic investors. Therefore, the judiciary should not allow itself to be used as a tool to delay the setting of a date.
Ramson said that Guyana desperately needs foreign investment, especially in the new oil and gas sector. He said that all investors being sought need stability as a precondition for their investments.
He said that the uncertainty surrounding the holding of elections does not support stability. He said too that this can cause Guyana’s risk profile to increase, which in turn increases the baseline entry percentage as a return on investment.
Ramson said if the government is – as it has indicated – determined to go to the court on the issue of the No-Confidence Motion, the court, cognizant of the provisions in the Constitution, which prescribes a timeframe of three months for an election to be held, can, and ought to expedite the determination all the way to the CCJ, if necessary, well in advance of that timeframe.
Ramson said that the case, once filed, will test the responsibility, independence and wisdom of the office holders of the judiciary.
Georgetown – Medical leave has been extended for the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Rtd) James Patterson, 85.
A statement on Tuesday from GECOM said that Patterson’s leave has been extended following a visit to his doctor Monday. Following the postponement of meetings from early December because he was unwell, GECOM had said that the meetings would have resumed from Tuesday.
“While the Chairman has been recovering well, he was advised by his doctor to have some additional rest to ensure that he fully recovers to effectively resume duty”, GECOM said.
The extension of leave will raise increasing questions about whether Patterson will be able to perform his duties. This is particularly in the light that early general elections have to be held following the passage of a motion of no confidence against the government.
There are also outstanding matters pertaining to the Local Government Elections of November 12 last year.
Patterson’s selection by President David Granger after he had rejected 18 names submitted by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo had led to questions being raised about whether he would be able to endure the rigours and divisiveness of a general elections campaign at his advanced age.
A statement on Tuesday from GECOM said that Patterson’s leave has been extended following a visit to his doctor Monday. Following the postponement of meetings from early December because he was unwell, GECOM had said that the meetings would have resumed from Tuesday.
“While the Chairman has been recovering well, he was advised by his doctor to have some additional rest to ensure that he fully recovers to effectively resume duty”, GECOM said.
The extension of leave will raise increasing questions about whether Patterson will be able to perform his duties. This is particularly in the light that early general elections have to be held following the passage of a motion of no confidence against the government.
There are also outstanding matters pertaining to the Local Government Elections of November 12 last year.
Patterson’s selection by President David Granger after he had rejected 18 names submitted by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo had led to questions being raised about whether he would be able to endure the rigours and divisiveness of a general elections campaign at his advanced age.
Georgetown – The presidential candidate for the People’s Progressive Party to contest the upcoming general elections will be named before month end according to Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo. He said that “around the third week in January” the Central Committee of the party should vote for the candidate.
The selection of the candidate has taken on added urgency given the likelihood that general elections will be held in March following the passage of a motion of no-confidence against the APNU+AFC government on December 21st.
Jagdeo said that party members of good standing are eligible to vie for the position.
Among those who have indicated their candidacy publicly are former PPP/C government ministers and Central Committee members Anil Nandlall, Irfaan Ali, Gail Teixeira and Dr Frank Anthony. But the name of Dr Vindhya Persaud, also a central committee member of the party, has been floated and is in contention to be the presidential candidate.
Although not in the Central Committee, Attorney at law Charles Ramson Jnr has also indicated his desire to contest.
Both Nandlall and Ali have said that if they become the presidential candidate and eventually elected president, Jagdeo will play an important role in their government.
Vindhya Persaud has been seen as a rising star in the party. She is the daughter of the late PPP executive Pandit Reepu Daman Persaud and is prominently associated with the Guyana Hindu Dharmic Sabha.
Meanwhile, the Executive Committee of the PPP has unanimously decided that the party’s presidential candidate shall come from within the membership of the Central Committee, however, that decision could be overturned by the Central Committee, Jagdeo said
He told the media that the decision was taken on Thursday when the Executive Committee (ExCo) met to discuss the procedures and eligibility of the candidates.
Charles Ramson Jnr., the non-ExCo member, said he respects the party’s decision and does not want the issue to detract from the party winning the general and regional elections, whenever they are held. “There is no question about my commitment to the party,” he said.
He added that he did not get the chance to contest the executive elections of the party at its congress in 2016 even though he had returned to the country just for it while doing a master’s degree in oil and gas. He said that by the time he had returned the date for expressing an interest in being elected had expired.
Jagdeo said the unanimous decision by 17 of the 18-member ExCo to have only members of the central committee selected was taken after looking at precedent in which no former presidential candidate was ever selected from outside of the Central Committee. It was decided that the candidates should have been tested at the party’s congress, the highest decision-making forum of the party and who would have carried out the party’s programmes.
Nevertheless, he said, that the 35-member Central Committee has the power to overturn the decision of the ExCo.
In Ramson’s case, Jagdeo said, if he feels dissatisfied with the decision of the ExCo, he can appeal to a Central Committee member who is not a member of the ExCo to nominate him. That can be put to the vote. As to whether the Central Committee accepts the nomination or not is another matter.
Whatever happens, Jagdeo said, “Mr Ramson is a very valuable member of the party.”
Voting for the presidential candidate is expected to be done by secret ballot, Jagdeo said, if candidates do not withdraw their candidacy in support of a unanimous choice. In the past, the party had gone with unanimity.
The selection of the candidate has taken on added urgency given the likelihood that general elections will be held in March following the passage of a motion of no-confidence against the APNU+AFC government on December 21st.
Jagdeo said that party members of good standing are eligible to vie for the position.
Among those who have indicated their candidacy publicly are former PPP/C government ministers and Central Committee members Anil Nandlall, Irfaan Ali, Gail Teixeira and Dr Frank Anthony. But the name of Dr Vindhya Persaud, also a central committee member of the party, has been floated and is in contention to be the presidential candidate.
Although not in the Central Committee, Attorney at law Charles Ramson Jnr has also indicated his desire to contest.
Both Nandlall and Ali have said that if they become the presidential candidate and eventually elected president, Jagdeo will play an important role in their government.
Vindhya Persaud has been seen as a rising star in the party. She is the daughter of the late PPP executive Pandit Reepu Daman Persaud and is prominently associated with the Guyana Hindu Dharmic Sabha.
Meanwhile, the Executive Committee of the PPP has unanimously decided that the party’s presidential candidate shall come from within the membership of the Central Committee, however, that decision could be overturned by the Central Committee, Jagdeo said
He told the media that the decision was taken on Thursday when the Executive Committee (ExCo) met to discuss the procedures and eligibility of the candidates.
Charles Ramson Jnr., the non-ExCo member, said he respects the party’s decision and does not want the issue to detract from the party winning the general and regional elections, whenever they are held. “There is no question about my commitment to the party,” he said.
He added that he did not get the chance to contest the executive elections of the party at its congress in 2016 even though he had returned to the country just for it while doing a master’s degree in oil and gas. He said that by the time he had returned the date for expressing an interest in being elected had expired.
Jagdeo said the unanimous decision by 17 of the 18-member ExCo to have only members of the central committee selected was taken after looking at precedent in which no former presidential candidate was ever selected from outside of the Central Committee. It was decided that the candidates should have been tested at the party’s congress, the highest decision-making forum of the party and who would have carried out the party’s programmes.
Nevertheless, he said, that the 35-member Central Committee has the power to overturn the decision of the ExCo.
In Ramson’s case, Jagdeo said, if he feels dissatisfied with the decision of the ExCo, he can appeal to a Central Committee member who is not a member of the ExCo to nominate him. That can be put to the vote. As to whether the Central Committee accepts the nomination or not is another matter.
Whatever happens, Jagdeo said, “Mr Ramson is a very valuable member of the party.”
Voting for the presidential candidate is expected to be done by secret ballot, Jagdeo said, if candidates do not withdraw their candidacy in support of a unanimous choice. In the past, the party had gone with unanimity.
Georgetown – Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo said over the weekend that elections preparations and government’s compliance with the Constitution are the key issues he intends to raise during Wednesday’s (today's) meeting with President David Granger.
In a statement issued on the agenda for the proposed meeting following the December 21 passage of a no-confidence motion against the government, Jagdeo criticised government’s move to the courts and charged that the protracted period for the meeting is to give the administration time to wriggle out of the obligations imposed on it by the constitutional provisions.
“Compliance with our Constitution in relation to the no-confidence motion and preparation for free and fair elections will therefore be the main issue on the agenda…we will however still keep an open mind on issues of governance despite the bad faith approach and concerted attempts by the Coalition to squander the goodwill for progress and mature, sensible behaviour,” Jagdeo said.
The PPP/C-sponsored no-confidence motion against the APNU+AFC government passed 33-32 after former government MP Charrandass Persaud defected and voted in favour. Subsequent to this, Jagdeo had, through Minister of State Joseph Harmon, requested a meeting with Granger to discuss the way forward. At the time of the request, Granger was receiving treatment in Cuba for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma but he gave a commitment to meet early in January 2019. The date for the meeting was made public by the PPP last Thursday.
Jagdeo reminded that after the passage of the motion, he made a statement that the development has to be seen as an opportunity to discuss not only how the parties act in the 90 days period and preparation for elections in compliance with the Constitution but also given that all the parties have constituencies, “to start exploring post elections possibilities of working together in the interest of Guyana and all our people.”
“I was pleased that both the Prime Minister and President accepted the outcome of the no-confidence vote and that the President issued a press release which indicated that he will meet with me and that he wanted to speak about enhancing political cooperation,” Jagdeo said.
“Since then, they have acted in bad faith and done everything to undermine this collaborative approach,” he contended.
Jagdeo accused the government of reneging on the public statements accepting the passage of the no-confidence motion and using the “most ludicrous arguments” in doing so. He singled out the argument that 34 votes rather than 33 was needed for the motion to pass as well as the claim that the government “did not tactically speak about this when the motion was passed for fear of activating 5 other PPP moles on the government side.” He also highlighted the claim that the PPP bribed Persaud and said that not a shred of evidence was provided.
Having failed to get Speaker of the National Assembly Dr Barton Scotland to reverse the ruling that the no-confidence motion was carried, government had now resorted to the courts to “override” the Constitution, Jagdeo contended.
Jagdeo accused the administration of using the court as a delay tactic and stressed that any attempt to violate the Constitution will be resisted.
“It seems as though the protracted period for the meeting is to give them time to wriggle out of the obligations imposed on them by articles 106(6) and 106(7) of our Constitution. We will fiercely resist this,” he said.
In a statement issued on the agenda for the proposed meeting following the December 21 passage of a no-confidence motion against the government, Jagdeo criticised government’s move to the courts and charged that the protracted period for the meeting is to give the administration time to wriggle out of the obligations imposed on it by the constitutional provisions.
“Compliance with our Constitution in relation to the no-confidence motion and preparation for free and fair elections will therefore be the main issue on the agenda…we will however still keep an open mind on issues of governance despite the bad faith approach and concerted attempts by the Coalition to squander the goodwill for progress and mature, sensible behaviour,” Jagdeo said.
The PPP/C-sponsored no-confidence motion against the APNU+AFC government passed 33-32 after former government MP Charrandass Persaud defected and voted in favour. Subsequent to this, Jagdeo had, through Minister of State Joseph Harmon, requested a meeting with Granger to discuss the way forward. At the time of the request, Granger was receiving treatment in Cuba for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma but he gave a commitment to meet early in January 2019. The date for the meeting was made public by the PPP last Thursday.
Jagdeo reminded that after the passage of the motion, he made a statement that the development has to be seen as an opportunity to discuss not only how the parties act in the 90 days period and preparation for elections in compliance with the Constitution but also given that all the parties have constituencies, “to start exploring post elections possibilities of working together in the interest of Guyana and all our people.”
“I was pleased that both the Prime Minister and President accepted the outcome of the no-confidence vote and that the President issued a press release which indicated that he will meet with me and that he wanted to speak about enhancing political cooperation,” Jagdeo said.
“Since then, they have acted in bad faith and done everything to undermine this collaborative approach,” he contended.
Jagdeo accused the government of reneging on the public statements accepting the passage of the no-confidence motion and using the “most ludicrous arguments” in doing so. He singled out the argument that 34 votes rather than 33 was needed for the motion to pass as well as the claim that the government “did not tactically speak about this when the motion was passed for fear of activating 5 other PPP moles on the government side.” He also highlighted the claim that the PPP bribed Persaud and said that not a shred of evidence was provided.
Having failed to get Speaker of the National Assembly Dr Barton Scotland to reverse the ruling that the no-confidence motion was carried, government had now resorted to the courts to “override” the Constitution, Jagdeo contended.
Jagdeo accused the administration of using the court as a delay tactic and stressed that any attempt to violate the Constitution will be resisted.
“It seems as though the protracted period for the meeting is to give them time to wriggle out of the obligations imposed on them by articles 106(6) and 106(7) of our Constitution. We will fiercely resist this,” he said.
of the constitution
Georgetown – Constitutional reform lobby group RISE Guyana has called on the Cabinet inclusive of the President to resign saying that refusal to do so in light of the passage of a no-confidence motion against the APNU+AFC government, amounts to a violation of the Constitution.
It also urged the government to avoid any delay in seeking resolution of all the issues which the government has cited in questioning the validity of the vote.
On December 21, former government MP Charrandass Persaud defected and voted for an opposition PPP/C-sponsored no-confidence motion against the APNU+ AFC government, tipping the scales 33-32 to carry the motion. While the government initially accepted that the motion was carried, it has since questioned the validity of the vote and has moved to the Court to have the decision set aside.
In a statement signed by its chairman, Marcel Gaskin, RISE said that it has observed with growing unease, the deeply fractious political environment in which Guyanese find themselves, as the current political climate engenders even deeper divisions amongst the majority of the people.
“It is in the context of its concern for greater unity amongst all Guyanese, clarity of purpose as to the future of our nation and its people and our deeply felt belief regarding adherence to democratic norms that we call on the Coalition government to abide by the provisions of the Constitution, specifically Article 106(6) which requires that the ‘Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of the majority of all elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence’,” the statement said.
It pointed out that while Article 106(7) permits the Government to remain in office and hold elections within three months of its defeat, Article 106(6) is clear that the Cabinet, including the President must resign.
“The no-confidence motion was carried. Cabinet must resign but has refused to do so,” the statement said. According to RISE, the justification for this refusal has been presented on three premises namely, that the majority formula required 34 rather than 33 votes; that the vote cast by Persaud was void since he was unqualified to vote being a dual citizen; and that Persaud’s vote was invalid since it was cast against the interest of the list which he represents.
“If the arguments are incorrect, Cabinet’s act of defiance amounts to a violation of the Constitution,” RISE contended.
According to the statement, RISE respects the right of the coalition government to seek redress through the courts. It urged the judiciary to act with urgency in order to enable the constitutional 90-day deadline if it is found necessary to do so. Guyana needs stability, the statement said.
“...RISE calls on the Government to avoid any delay in advancing the resolution of all the issues raised so that the country can learn quickly and for its own benefit without room for ambiguity or misinterpretation what the Government and Cabinet are obligated to do and whether we must have elections in the next 75 days,” the statement said.
It also urged the government to avoid any delay in seeking resolution of all the issues which the government has cited in questioning the validity of the vote.
On December 21, former government MP Charrandass Persaud defected and voted for an opposition PPP/C-sponsored no-confidence motion against the APNU+ AFC government, tipping the scales 33-32 to carry the motion. While the government initially accepted that the motion was carried, it has since questioned the validity of the vote and has moved to the Court to have the decision set aside.
In a statement signed by its chairman, Marcel Gaskin, RISE said that it has observed with growing unease, the deeply fractious political environment in which Guyanese find themselves, as the current political climate engenders even deeper divisions amongst the majority of the people.
“It is in the context of its concern for greater unity amongst all Guyanese, clarity of purpose as to the future of our nation and its people and our deeply felt belief regarding adherence to democratic norms that we call on the Coalition government to abide by the provisions of the Constitution, specifically Article 106(6) which requires that the ‘Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of the majority of all elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence’,” the statement said.
It pointed out that while Article 106(7) permits the Government to remain in office and hold elections within three months of its defeat, Article 106(6) is clear that the Cabinet, including the President must resign.
“The no-confidence motion was carried. Cabinet must resign but has refused to do so,” the statement said. According to RISE, the justification for this refusal has been presented on three premises namely, that the majority formula required 34 rather than 33 votes; that the vote cast by Persaud was void since he was unqualified to vote being a dual citizen; and that Persaud’s vote was invalid since it was cast against the interest of the list which he represents.
“If the arguments are incorrect, Cabinet’s act of defiance amounts to a violation of the Constitution,” RISE contended.
According to the statement, RISE respects the right of the coalition government to seek redress through the courts. It urged the judiciary to act with urgency in order to enable the constitutional 90-day deadline if it is found necessary to do so. Guyana needs stability, the statement said.
“...RISE calls on the Government to avoid any delay in advancing the resolution of all the issues raised so that the country can learn quickly and for its own benefit without room for ambiguity or misinterpretation what the Government and Cabinet are obligated to do and whether we must have elections in the next 75 days,” the statement said.
To advertise in ICW call
Call 905-738-5005