Compromise on rule of law is invitation to anarchy

Dear Editor,
The talk of compromise on the rule of law is an invitation to anarchy. Indeed, it may be anarchy itself, a proposal for a nonrecognition of authority (here, the courts). The CCJ says the NCM is legitimate, but now there are public whispers saying otherwise.
This may be enticing to some who have argued about the principle of separation of powers. However, with their invitation to anarchy, these “powers” are becoming so separate that the Executive feels it no longer needs to recognise the others.
It is an abnormal situation; a distending or stretching of the law to fashion a new definition of compromise to undermine both public and court orders. Compromise is a good word, but the sincerity of compliance makes “compliance” a much better one.
Compliance with a doctor’s prescription to save a human life or compliance with a court order to preserve the security of the State, as we know them to be.
There is none among us, no attorney, judge, professor, or member of the caretaker Government who has the skill to marshal the English language into battle against the Constitution, in order to lawfully change compliance with into compromise of the law.
Instead, what we have are architects of what the late Vaclav Havel, the famous dissident and former President of the Czech Republic called “evasive thinking,” or “a way of thinking that turns away from the core of the matter to something else”. They seek to introduce the public into a new universe where the public is asked to tip-toe around the Constitution. Repeated mention of the rule of law is noise to their ears.
Maybe Guyana should close its courtrooms to prevent Judges and Magistrates from being accused of having their heads in the sand, with their usual lofty talk about the legalities of the rule of law.
Listening to these architects, perhaps it is true that if dunces make laws the learned just may follow. However, in their new universe, if the President gets a free pass in the name of compromise, then other violators will also demand free passes of compromise. A man convicted of rape shall no longer receive a sentence for rape, due to his free pass of compromise.
Further, they will strangle the customary freedoms known to the public and keep for themselves new tyrannies. Government will cut loose. Things will fall apart as the poet, Yeats, wrote.
For example, some in Government may compromise on the law to satisfy a demand for mob justice by manufacturing evidence to charge anyone, such as a deportee returning from the United States after serving time for a drug-related conviction.
One must respectfully decline this invitation to anarchy for love of country.

Sincerely,
Rakesh Rampertab