Returning to Guyana in 1989, I was a member of an activist group called the “Jaguar Committee for Democracy” (JCD), that published a monthly newsletter, “Jaguar”. One of our idèe fixe was to stress the need for “constitutional change” and I wrote a paper on this subject: “Towards the Second Republic: For a new Constitution”, which was released May 5, 1991. David De Caires, publisher of the Stabroek News, became interested and asked to have the piece run as a series of articles in his newspaper.
In the first article published in July 1991, I wrote: “Recently in Guyana, there have been widespread calls for the present Constitution to be either extensively revised or completely abolished. Both the PPP (SN11/18/90) and the WPA (12/2/90) have stated that following free and fair elections, they would recommend the National Assembly be constituted into a “constituent assembly” to draft a new Constitution. Even Desmond Hoyte, leader of the PNC – and one of the architects of the 1980 Constitution – has conceded that at least one of its aspects, its socialist orientation should be changed. He would like the Constitution to be ‘neutral’.
“Substantively, there is much in the Constitution, with which we disagree: the dictatorial presidency, the social ethos, the lack of accountability, etc. However, there will always be citizens who differ with aspects of their country’s legal institutions, including their Constitutions and this private right must be balanced against the public need for continuity, predictability and stability in the affairs of the state. Constitutions cannot be altered capriciously. It is for this reason they specify fairly elaborate and rigorous procedures to compel reflection before amendments can be enacted. Cognisant of this caution, we yet support calls for the repeal of the 1980 Constitution for the following reasons.
“Under the 1966 Independence Constitution, certain sections were most rigorously “entrenched” and could only be amended by a national referendum in accordance with stipulations in the Amending Clause (Article 73(1)). This amending clause was itself so entrenched. In 1978, the PNC decided to introduce a new Constitution, which of course, is the ultimate amendment involving all clauses. Since the Government law was still the 1966 Constitution, and entrenched clauses would be changed, the PNC realised they would have to submit the new Constitution to the Guyanese people for ratification in a referendum. This they were unwilling to do. They instead decided to hold a referendum to amend the Amending Clause so as not to require the subsequent ratification of the new Constitution. This referendum was boycotted by the Opposition parties, yet the PNC claimed a 97 per cent approval. Independent observers, however, maintained that not more than 15 per cent of the electorate turned out to vote.
“Using its greater than 2/3 majority in the National Assembly obtained in the rigged 1973 elections, the PNC extended the life of Parliament on 7/10/78 and the Assembly was transformed into a “Constituent Assembly”. The PNC submitted its Draft Constitution in December the same year and ostentatiously invited other organisations to join the Assembly. Illustrating the nature of the invitation, the TUC complained later that “not one iota” of its recommendations were accepted and the PNC only wanted labour to rubber stamp its draft. This draft was passed on 2/14/1980 almost unchanged and was assented to by President Arthur Chung six days later.
“This is the 1980 Constitution, which is still in force: drafted by a minority party, passed by an illegal Assembly and never ratified by the Guyanese people. It thus violates the most fundamental requirement of a Constitution – that it reflect “the will of the people”.
“As a postscript to this sordid episode in Guyana’s history, to add insult to injury, the PNC reintroduced the need for a national referendum to amend certain entrenched clauses. The PNC arrogantly demonstrated it simply had never wanted to put its Constitution before the people.”
After the PPP acceded to office, their fervour for constitutional change waned for some inexplicable reason. David De Caires decided to rerun the series calling for a new Constitution in 1993.
