Gov’t in office past constitutionally mandated period

Dear Editor,

It is a shame, disgrace and embarrassing, that the Brigadier President, his government and his lawyers are incapable of reckoning what is the majority of 65. It is a usurpation of power that the Brigadier has demonstrated with regard to the constitution.

Only if this untrustworthy government had won an election taking place by end March 2019 could it have continued in power. Confidence in the government was lost on Dec. 21, 2018. By the end of the third month following that, the government was constitutionally obliged to hold elections. This was the maximum date of validity for the losing government to stay in office according to the constitution. Had it held elections before or up until that date, then as of that election date, its validity would have also expired, if it lost that election. A new president of the victor would have been sworn in.

To my mind this is again what the constitution means by saying the government will remain in office. But this only up until that maximum expiry date of March 31, 2019. The reason for this interim period of three months carries with it the obligation and the responsibility of the losers to order, prepare and hold elections.

Yours faithfully, Valon Schuler Switzerland

In the mid to late fifties it was taken as a given that hugely “overpopulated”

countries were doomed to economic failure as Malthus had asserted with

certainty. It took some fifty years before serious questions were raised about that belief.

It is really difficult today to see the West Indies with its handful of people

winning consistently in international sport unless some really thorough

re-engineering is instituted. Let`s hope.

Yours faithfully, R Pitt