…Presidential wings?
When Burnham gave constitutional imprimatur in 1980 – through his personal Constitution – to the powers that made him more powerful than any British king that had ruled us since 1814, it was part of the logic that flowed from his rigging of elections. Rigging violated the fundamental constitutional stipulation that citizens have a fundamental right to select their government – and he had to protect himself against being hauled before the courts. Even though he flew his flag over the Court of Appeal, he knew that, because of the separation of powers doctrine, he couldn’t constitutionally define the Judiciary as subservient to the Executive – which he was!! – and there was always a threat from that quarter.
So, he arranged through explicit provisions that there was no way he could’ve been removed from office – mostly by giving himself the power to appoint the persons who might be able to do so!!
However, in the Parliamentary system he’d inherited from the Brits – and which he’d studied as a lawyer trained in England – he knew that immunity from criminal prosecution isn’t enjoyed by Members of Parliament under the Westminster system. And the PM was an MP!! This lack of criminal immunity is derived from the key tenet of the British Constitution: that all are equal before the law!!
So, he created an Executive Presidency, that removed him from Parliament and gave him TOTAL immunity from prosecution via Article 182. This states, “(1) Subject to the provisions of Article 180, the holder of the office of President shall not be personally answerable to any Court for the performance of the functions of his or her office or for any act done in the performance of those functions, and no proceedings, whether criminal or civil, shall be instituted against him or her in his or her personal capacity in respect thereof, either during his or her term of office or thereafter.”
At the time – 1980 – even the US President didn’t have this wide immunity, since neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the US Constitution or any federal statute!! However, two years later, their Supremes found – in Nixon vs Fitzgerald (1982) – that the president had absolute immunity from civil damages’ actions regarding conduct within the “outer perimeter” of their duties. Your eyewitness notes that, in the US, immunity is restricted to “civil damages”, while ours extends to criminal.
Should we relook at this clause in the upcoming promised Constitutional Reform process?? Back in 2000, most of the other powers Burnham had granted to himself were removed – but this one remained. The subject has been broached, and your Eyewitness raises it now for a wider discussion, since we know how easily some politicians might become infected by the Burnham syndrome!!
…Haiti’s gang power?
Your Eyewitness knows we’re all keeping our fingers crossed that the Caricom-brokered process to return some semblance of normality to Haiti will hold. “Hear ma plea, Oh Jah/ A song for my land/ Rose up early this morning/ To tha sound of crying/ Another mother shedding her t-e-a-r-s oh Jah/ Why all the pain and suffering?/ Why all the senseless killing?/ Could it be that nobody cares? Oh no/ So many sons lost in the slaughter/ Blood running in the streets like water/ A gun in hand knows no f-r-i-e-n-d (oh no)/ Warmongers selling death in my land/ Getting richer of the souls of we children/ Can you tell me when will it end?”
Not soon, if the gangs have their way!! After holding the entire nation hostage and killing one innocent every hour, their leader, Barbeque, says they gotta be involved: “It’s either we’re all at the table, or the table gets destroyed with all of us”!!
Funny…where’d we hear that in Guyana??
…runnings?
There’s a heated back-and-forth about who’s actually supposed to be getting the state’s assistance in Guyana for the UN recommendations on International Decade for People of African Descent – IDPAD.
Ultimately, it’s gotta be PERSONS of African descent!!
