Frantic efforts to undermine motion of no confidence
Dear Editor,
As was to be expected, following passage of the No Confidence Motion, certain court jesters have sprung up. Their aim is to chip away as fast, and as hard as they can at the legality of the No Confidence Motion.
Unlike jesters of medieval times who were bold enough to tell the truth, the modern day jesters are supportive of the coalition and prefer to engage in tomfoolery by advancing all kinds of shenanigans.
Frantic efforts are being made to throw dust in the eyes of the Guyanese people with the aim of preventing the dust from settling and to move on in peace and good order within the meaning Constitution of the Republic.
But on a more dangerous note, the public must know that there are other activities, covert in nature that are taking place in villages known to be PNC strongholds.
The intention of those involved is to stir up pockets of protests against passage of the No Confidence Motion.
Observers are left to wonder why, despite the assurances issued by President Granger to the effect that there is ‘’No cause for alarm, and there are no grounds for any form of disorder ...’’ some mischief makers within his camp are working overtime to turn back the clock. of the
The President further declared, following passage of the No Confidence Motion that ‘’government will abide by the (constitutional) stipulations, which have been imposed on it.’’
In the circumstances, the public is very much aware that the single overarching stipulation enshrined in the Constitution of Guyana in this particular matter, and to which the government must abide is that the government must resign and work with the parliamentary opposition on the steps to be taken thereafter.
Notwithstanding acceptance of defeat by Prime Minister Nagamootoo who declared that: ‘while the outcome of the motion was not favourable, it must be respected’ and later, assurances by the President himself, it appears that differing views on the motion’s passage have surfaced within the coalition resulting in the uncontrolled behaviour of some of his ministers.
It is precisely this indisciplined behaviour of certain ministers of government that prompted Christopher Ram to remark that: ‘The Head of State offered very little leadership and allowed some of his ministers to run uncontrolled.’
It is these uncontrollable ministers who