President Ramotar used naked constitutional force to deny the right of elected members of parliament
Dear Editor,
Former President Donald Ramotar, in a letter published in Stabroek News on July 4, 2019, rebuked me for saying that, as President, he had prorogued Parliament without an explanation. He said that I was mistaken about his action and went on to describe the circumstances in which he used the presidential discretionary power to prorogue the House. I have no interest in the possible short-term benefits of misrepresenting others. I studied President Ramotar’s letter of July 4, 2019 and got the impression that part of his argument is that he prorogued the House, in order to encourage dialogue and a spirit of accommodation among the parties in the National Assembly.
It may be thought that, because of my age, I know everything about the workings of the National Assembly, of which I had been a member for 133 days in 1953 and for a single term of some 5 years after the 1985 General Elections. This is not much parliamentary experience, compared to that of others. Clearly, I have a lot to learn.
President Ramotar’s letter has educated me about the significance of a no-confidence motion in our political system. I had always thought that a no-confidence motion came when a member, believing that he or she is speaking for other members and the general public, concludes that the time has come for an end of the Government’s term, regardless of the time it had been in office. The former President saw it differently in 2014 and used the occasion, as he writes, to reduce tensions and differences among the parties elected by the people. In my opinion, President Ramotar’s claim opens new possibilities for a no-confidence motion. In his letter of July 4, 2019, he also revealed that at the time of the AFC’s no-confidence motion, the ruling party, which he headed, had what he called “a one-seat minority in the National Assembly and the opposition was doing its best to sabotage all government’s efforts.”
On January 20, 2014, in his address to the nation, the then President offered additional information regarding his purpose in proroguing the House:
“My fellow Guyanese, as you will recall I prorogued Parliament on November 10, 2014. In doing so, I indicated that I was opting to preserve rather than end the life of the 10th Parliament. I was also attempting to avoid further political conflict and seek avenues of political accommodation between my government and the parliamentary opposition parties.
I had hoped that the period of prorogation would have allowed for extant tensions to ease and for all of the parliamentary parties to constructively engage the government. At all times I have acted in accordance with the Constitution of Guyana.”
I hope that the former President will not think me unfair, if I adopt his own explanation given in his address to the nation, to whom he holds “true faith and allegiance”, according to the Presidential Oath of Office. In that solemn address to his people, he said that he had used the prorogation to preserve the 10th Parliament and not to end it. This is the same as saying that he had used the prorogation to save his government from defeat on a vote of confidence.
In summary, this is what has happened. In December, 2018, the PPP opposition defeated the ruling coalition on a vote of confidence which has been upheld by the courts on the basis of Constitutional law. There is, however, another law, the law of political morality, which runs deeper, to be upheld by those who considered themselves honourable. President Ramotar did not uphold the constitution, he used naked constitutional force to deny the right of elected members of parliament. Somewhere a Judge had said that those who come to the courts for redress must “come with clean hands”.
It is left to former President Ramotar to tell us whether the PPP’s no-confidence motion of December 2018 was intended to “reduce tensions and seek accommodation”, or was simply the no-confidence motion as we know it. It seems that we are being asked to believe that a no-confidence motion is sabotage when laid against the PPP, but is a normal Constitutional procedure when laid against its opponents. The state of mind that sees things in this light is not very helpful to reconciliation, or to the sense of nationhood.
Yours faithfully,
Eusi Kwayana