Worst constitutional crises were under the PPP/C

Dear Editor,

A very small band of bellicose individuals are shouting every day that the “worst” constitutional crisis in our history is impending. It reminds us of the Henny Penny story that made famous the line, “The sky is falling”, which has now become a metaphor signalling danger is imminent. For the man in the street, however, tomorrow is just another day.

As a matter of fact, every generation thinks the challenges occurring in its epoch are the worst in history, so at first glance it is easy to accept such rhetoric of an impending constitutional crisis without closer scrutiny. But history would show that other events of a similar nature under the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), instead, did push us to the worst constitutional crisis in our nation’s history.

Yet with true Guyanese tenacity and resolve we have overcome and are the stronger for it. The Guyanese people are indeed a match for anything.

The first major constitutional crisis in this nation surrounded the 1997 Elections which culminated with the end of the Herdmanston Accord in 2001 and the second, the subsequent voiding of those elections on the basis that they were unconstitutional.

As one commentator of the period noted in one of the daily newspapers, “After the elections of 1997 and as a result of the non-declaration of official results, the arbitrary behaviour of Mr. Doodnauth Singh, the secret and illegal swearing in of Mrs. Jagan as President, and the resultant acts of protestations, there was a void of constitutional rule in Guyana”.

It therefore means that at January 16, 1998 there was no legitimate government. The Constitution, the people’s contract for governance, the fundamental law of the land, having been violated and observed in the breach caused the people to take extra-constitutional measures to reinstate constitutional rule and respect for the supremacy of the constitution.

The reinstatement finally came about through the Herdmanston Accord. The Herdmanston Accord was signed by the two parties which manifestly represented the vast majority of the people. The Accord reinstated the Constitution with one proviso: that new elections must be held by January 17, 2001.” This never happened. The PPP/C government chose instead to put “voluntary limits” on its governance. Elections were held in March 2001.

An Editorial of the period states, “There was of course the ground-breaking meeting at the Office of the President between President Jagdeo, Mr. Hoyte and the leaders of the other two parliamentary parties but it failed ultimately in providing the basis for a governance agreement.”

The second major constitutional crisis, the mother of all constitutional crises

locally, as said before; also of 2001, was the decision of Justice Claudette Singh in the Elections Petition Case of 1997. Justice Singh vitiated those Elections, stating among other things that the Voter ID Card legislation at that time was unconstitutional.

Inspite of this the PPP/C declared its government to be legal and vowed to remain in office even though then President Bharrat Jagdeo himself described the period between January 15, 2001 when Justice Singh announced her decision - and when she announced her final order, January 26, 2001, as “difficult and disturbing for our country and unprecedented in its history.”

One major newspaper front page headline, read, “Business as usual - Jagdeo”.

It is interesting to note as well, that Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran representing co-respondent and former President Janet Jagan, in contrast to previous arguments that the judge having voided the elections on a constitutional point did not have the power to make consequential orders, he presented a proposal for the court to rule that:

“(1) All acts and things done by the National Assembly, the Court and all state agencies, bodies and institutions from December 15, 1997 are valid, lawful and binding.

(2) The National Assembly, the Government, and all state agencies, bodies and institutions shall remain in existence and shall continue functioning until the president is sworn in and are valid, lawful and binding.

(3) And all acts and things done by the above until the president is sworn in are valid, lawful and binding.

At the heart of the argument is the need to create a remedy which will avoid that which can lead to anarchy...and plunging our country into constitutional crisis.”

But what I have found most insightful is that Justice Claudette Singh stressed repeatedly at the beginning of delivery of her judgment which voided the 1997 General and Regional Elections for unconstitutionality, “I have no jurisdiction to order the President or the government to demit office.”

Yours faithfully, Sherod Avery Duncan