PNC’s no-confidence...

Now, as simple as this may seem, as long as the clerk of the house walked out of that meeting and never returned, it means that the meeting is finished, and I mean finished. Therefore, if the Chairman proceeded with the said meeting, it is illegal and everything and or decisions that took place after the clerk walked out are deemed illegal. So, the NCM that the PNC Chairman is deeming as lawful is illegal, and at no time can it be accepted by the RDC as legal, because the presiding officer, who is the clerk, was not present to preside over that matter.

It’s simple. If a judge is presiding over several cases for the day, and walks off while the second case is going on in the court and never returns, the matter at hand cannot go on, and no other matter can be dealt with by the lawyer(s) or prosecutor(s) because there will be no legal presiding officer.

So, the PNC needs fiveyear of classroom teaching on the laws that govern the local democratic organs of this country. I hope the said MP also knows that an MP can be recalled from Parliament by the Head of the List, but a Regional level of governance and expand inclusivity? (2) Would any consideration be given to power-sharing? (3) What type of civil sanction should be imposed for breaches of the constitution, and should there be established a Constitutional Tribunal to oversee constitutional compliance? (4) Should the people have the right to recall parliamentary representatives despite the list method of voting? (5) Would the people’s right to exercise their political choice at a referendum be preserved?

(6) Would constitutional change aid in the promotion of One Guyana and fairness in the allocation of resources? (7) Would there be any consideration for the restoration of a bicameral legislature that is a common feature in Caricom countries?

(8) Would election to the second chamber (senate) be on a first-past-the-post system?

Here are other issues: (9) Given the disparity in judicial sentencing, would any consideration be given to the establishment of sentencing guidelines for the courts?

(10) Aren’t the existing libel laws stifling freedom of expression and the freedom of the press?

(11)Why should the Chancellor of the Judiciary and the Chief Justice sit as official members of the Judicial Service Commission where they decide who would become one of their colleagues (Judge)? Isn’t this a conflict of interest; why can’t their expertise be tapped as ex-officio members? (12) To avoid future controversy, shouldn’t consideration be given for the setting of an upper limit on how many political appointees an incoming Government can hire?

(13) With the rapid influx of migrants into Guyana, shouldn’t the existing citizenship qualifications be reviewed? (13) With respect to general elections, would the appointment formula for the GECOM Chair be revisited, as well as the status of Guyanese voters who are resident overseas?

An implied expectation of constitutional amendments like those of 2001 was that these would have made it easier for Opposition political parties and others to become involved in the decision-making process of the state. A central issue, inclusivity, did not bring them closer to the result they had intended. At the political level, the main Opposition party PNCR lost the 2001 general and regional elections as well as the 2006 elections, and in their frustration, they began to clamour for further constitutional changes to allow for such provisions as shared governance (or power sharing).

Despite political parties’ rhetorical flourishes on constitutional reform, the drive in this regard has continued to subside since 2015. Besides a report generated by the coalition’s Constitutional Reform Consultative Commission (CRCC) after two years in office, no other important constitutionally related event occurred during 2015-2020. And after 2 years in office, the PPPC Government passed legislation with the expectation of moving forward with the constitutional process with the establishment of a 20-member Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC). However, this move has not ignited any momentum for constitutional reform, and the Attorney General (AG) blames APNU/AFC for non-cooperation. Mr. Anil Nandlall concedes that if the Parliamentary Opposition does not get on board, the Government cannot proceed with constitutional reform.

Several challenges have emerged now for political parties such as: “Would constitutional reform necessarily play to their advantage?” and “Would constitutional reform entail a recalibration of their political strategy?” Finally, would LGE 2023 (Local Government Election) scheduled for June 11th, be the catalyst for constitutional reform?

Sincerely,

Dr Tara Singh