Page 04
Kaieteur News
Kaieteur News Printed and Published by National Media & Publishing Company Ltd. 24 Saffon Street, Charlestown, Georgetown, Guyana. Publisher: GLENN LALL Editor: Adam Harris Tel: 225-8465, 225-8491. Fax: 225-8473, 226-8210
EDITORIAL
We must learn to think, not simply remember Individuals play significant roles in shaping history, by challenging old traditions and by contributing new ideas and concepts to pave the way for progress. On the other hand, there are those who attempt to strengthen old systems and support established norms. Should we accept and recognise the thoughts of the latter on a permanent basis as guiding principles? Or treat them as valid for a while and discard them once their usefulness is over? Should future generations be given enough space to create their own ideas according to their requirements? In the case of Guyana, have we created new ideas in response to new challenges, or have we produced individuals who could, after condemning outdated and obsolete traditions, prepare themselves and us for a new world? Most would say that we have not; and consequently, historical figures and their teachings have not been built upon. Unfortunately, once a society depends on historical icons only and the stereotyped ideas, that society becomes static and stagnant. The cyclic pattern of history ceases to function, and the creativity and fertility of mind in the citizenry is stultified. In such a state, challenging the validity of old teachings and the credibility of its sacred cows are seen by some as tantamount to treason. Old ideas are repeatedly presented, and asserted with such vigour that past leaders’ names are identified with their ideas, as reported. Then there are thinkers and politicians whose teachings and policies remain strikingly contradictory, especially in the case of politicians, with whom it is very difficult to find a consistent point of view. Politicians are quite capable of saying something contrary to their own previously stated viewpoints. That is why it is rare in politicians to have a definite line of thought. They have to speak a lot for public consumption. The problem arises when different groups belonging to different ideologies and political concepts select, as their guide or hero, a person who has had complex views, which appear confusing when quoted out of context. Each group makes attempts at using selected ideas of a person to promote its own agenda, creating more confusion and making it difficult for the common man to correctly analyse the situation. We have two outstanding examples to illustrate our point: Dr Cheddi Jagan and Mr L.F.S. Burnham. Consistently, the thoughts of these two leaders are mined from their speeches or writings to buttress ideas or positions posited in an abundance of political circumstances. Oftentimes, when there is no quote that can be proffered, there is even speculation as to what the leader may have thought on the issue. It is ironic that both these personalities railed against dogma in their own lifetimes. Why do societies need icons? Why do political parties and public forums require confirmation of their agendas, ideas and thoughts, when they want to propagate their own political programme and put forward their own social or economic ideas? Why don’t they have strong arguments to convince people, instead of relying on historical personalities to prove their points of view based on their authority? It seems that once an idea is accepted on the authority of a person, it can neither be challenged nor criticised. Whatever is attributed to the aforementioned former leaders automatically becomes sacrosanct. The problem with this approach is that when people accept anything unquestioningly on the basis of historical authority, they do not care to understand the origin of such ideas, leave aside their historical evolution and practical implications. Blind recognition on the basis of authority discourages the process of rational analysis among the people, as they rely on myth rather than their own ability to think about and analyse their own problems in their own times. The only method to educate the people is to discuss
Friday February 14, 2014
Letters... Where your views make the news
CJ’S decision all a matter of interpretation DEAR EDITOR, The High Court granted declarations - (1) That the National Assembly through the Committees of supply has acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally in purporting to reduce or cut the estimates of expenditure of the Minister of Finance and (2) that the power of the National Assembly is limited to giving or withholding its approval for the Minister’s Estimates when those estimates are laid before the Assembly for its approval under article 218 of the Constitution. None (not even an appellate court-it can agree o r d i s a g r e e ) c a n s a y, positively, that the learned Chief Justice (ag) in the “Budget Cut” case made a right or wrong decision. You see, we are in the sphere of interpretation of certain constitutional provisions (on which there are no binding authority) which, are necessarily
drafted in general language; and inherent in such generality, is difficulty of interpretation - knowing with irrefutable certainty what the draftsman who drafted those provisions truly intended. For myself, I apprehend that the draftsman in article 218 in providing viz: “(1) The Minister responsible for finance … shall cause to be prepared and laid before the National Assembly …… estimates of the revenues and expenditure of Guyana for that year”; (2) When the estimates of expenditure … have been approved by the Assembly, a bill to be known as an Appropriation Bill shall be introduced …” intended, and contemplated approval in the context of that historic English constitutional doctrine of sole, absolute parliamentary control over the Executive in the expenditure of public money (and more specifically out of the Consolidated Fund) of
which, the draftsman must, as a legal person, be taken to have been aware. The learned Chief Justice (ag) apparently was not persuaded of the merits of such a legalistic approach. Being Devil’s advocate, I must recognize that the problem with such a doctrinaire dogmatic approach, is that Privy Council decisions such as Abegbenro v. Akintola (1963 – a Nigerian case – and Ministry of Home Affairs v. Fisher (1980) - a Bermudian case – has aptly illustrated, that Westminister model constitution’s intendments can be wholly inconsistent with certain English constitutional doctrine. But doctrines are fundamental to, and, in, the architecture of the Constitution. There are some salient assumptions and influencing factors to which attention must be drawn. Assuredly, the draftsman drafted the intertwining provisions of
articles 217 and 218 of the Constitution mindful of the type of politics, public finance management and jurisprudence the constitution is as a matter of underlining policies, expected to manifest, promote, nurture and engender. So, it must be that any doubt in interpretation (and plainly much doubt there is) must be resolved in favour of an interpretation that does not impair in this context, efficient public finance management, in the conduct of Government business. So, firstly, our 1980 Constitution was not drafted at Westminister, but our 1966 Constitution was drafted at Westminister in England (hence the label “ We s t m i n i s t e r m o d e l ” constitution) and it is plainly logical and meritorious to suppose that articles 110 and 111 respectively of the 1966 Constitution, which unmitigatedly were adopted (Continued on page 40)
This is my report on the theft of cash from my office at GECOM DEAR EDITOR, I appeared before the Public Accounts Committee on 3rd February, 2014 to give account for the Stewardship of the Accounting Officer in relation to matters raised in the 2011 Auditor General’s Report. This report predated my Stewardship by two and a half years. Having experienced the unpleasantness of that meeting, coupled with the various reports in the media, it has become necessary for me to debunk certain misinformation, misrepresentation and innuendoes especially as they relate to the matter specifically relating to me. To this end, I wish to make public the report that I made to the Police on 16th September, 2006 regarding the theft of cash from my office after the fire in September 2006. I, Calvin Benn am Deputy Commissioner/ Deputy Chief Election Officer of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). I hereby state
that on Wednesday 13, 2006 (four days after the fire at GECOM) at about 10:30 hrs, Mr. Maxwell, Security Officer attached to GECOM and I entered my office at GECOM Secretariat to retrieve cash, documents, materials and equipment remaining after the fire on September 9, 2006. Several requests each day before September 13, to access the building were refused by the Fire Service and Security guarding the site. On entering the office it was observed that the office was ransacked and that paper and other materials were strewn all over the floor. The two drawer cabinet used for safe keeping of cash and sensitive articles was opened and the iron bar and padlock used to secure the cabinet were on the floor. I checked the top drawer where I secured four hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars ($435,000.00) and discovered the money was missing along with my Scotia Bank Gold Card. The said sum of money was part
with them freely the origins and development of ideas and political systems, such as nationalism, imperialism, socialism and democracy. Once they understand this, they will also be able to understand the merits and demerits of different ideologies, and will be in a position to decide for themselves. Critical and rational examination of political and historical concepts, and not blindly following of outdated ideas, is what makes an enlightened people. We must learn to think, not simply remember.
of a larger sum issued to me by the Accounts Division to offset costs for various activities for the preparation and conduct of elections and post-election activities. On examining the padlock it was observed that it was wrenched from the cabinet. I last checked the money around 08:00 hrs on 9th before going to the evaluation session with Registration Officers at the Command Centre at 72 High Street, Kingston, Georgetown. The sum of money was in five bundles/ parcels, four of which contained one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) each and the fifth contained thirty five thousand dollars ($35,000). I immediately informed
Mr. Gocool Boodoo, Chief Election Officer who was at the time checking his office nearby. I also alerted the Chief Security Officer of G E C O M M r. D e r i c k Thompson, who was also in the building and Mr. Keith Lowenfield, Assistant Chief Election Officer who was at the time checking his office next door to mine. The Chief Election Officer showed me a canister in his office which also had the padlock securing it wrenched off and the contents emptied in a chair. The contents were mainly CDs that contained sensitive information. I hereby wish to report that the sum of money has not been located. Calvin Benn
The Opposition had no back-up plan DEAR EDITOR, The Parliamentary Opposition parties unfortunately had no backup plan in the event the G o v e r n m e n t ’s B u d g e t Appeal case was successful. The Court decision, therefore, caught the Opposition unawares and threw them into a wild panic which was reflected in the confused statements made by Opposition spokespersons. At this time the
Opposition needs to be calm and collected and accept reality. They must now act with speed and focused intelligence and must invoke the help of their brain-boxes to quickly evolve effective strategies well within the framework of the Guyana Constitution. They must remember that there is always an answer to every question and a solution to every problem. V. Redman