Home Letters Neil Boston’s presentation to CCJ highlights what danger lies ahead
Those three days of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) proceedings were an eye opener for many of us in the rational middle, who are wedded to the principles of democracy and genuine human development, unlike the political class that follows this list and that list submissively. It is this “falla the leader” mentality that has rendered Guyana into a human underdeveloped wasteland although it haas the greatest potential wealth within Caricom.
So to listen to the licentiousness preached by no less than a Senior Counsel in defence of the ruling political class at the CCJ was just shocking.
I was able to reconcile what I heard with my own ears from the CCJ on GlobeSpan 24×7 to what was printed in the Guyana Chronicle, a paper that I rarely read (I deliberately chose the Chronicle for this occasion).
This is what Neil Boston, SC, was heard saying and was quoted in the Guyana Chronicle “the Guyana Constitution was amended to prohibit Members of Parliament (MPs) from voting against their list….”
This declaration leads one to wonder, are there only rubber stamps in Parliament? If the intention was to have the 65 MPs slavishly follow the list, then we do not need them. In such a circumstance, we need at most five rubber stamps. A Leader of Government Business, maybe a Government Chief Whip, a Leader of the Opposition, maybe an Opposition Chief Whip and a Speaker who does everything the Executive President instructs and at the end of their sitting, they will all hold hands and sing “God save the king”. At least the food and drinks bill from Parliament would have been reduced from $700,000 per sitting to about $50,000; a great saving to the people.
Furthermore, if we are to follow Boston, we do not even need a National Assembly because the President will then serve the role as both the Executive and Legislative and assume the role of a Monarch, Tsar and Emperor. But this was never what the founding fathers and mothers intended when they petitioned the British to free themselves from the Queen of England as they held hands and collectively adopted the status as the world’s first Co-operative Republic in 1970. My forefathers wanted to be free of the Monarchy and, therefore, one must understand that there is no role in these modern times for a King Granger. No.
But enough of this fairy-tale fantasy of Boston. The framers of the Constitution, however flawed that document, did have one fundamental thought set in mind – checks and balances.
That is why they have established a framework that protects the independence of the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive with clear roles. The Legislature makes the law, the Judiciary interprets the law and the Executive enforces the law. If the Constitution wanted the National Assembly to be a rubber stamp, it would have said so.
Lastly, Charrandas Persaud was one of the 25 MPs who came from the geographic list as the representative of the people from the Corentyne. There were good reasons why he was placed as the lead MP for the coalition from that district. If this list system was all that matters, then you could put up any “PNC rum bogies (sageewangs)” from Berbice who would not even have to campaign and they would have won because the people of Corentyne so loved the PNC and their list. No, Editor, there is merit to the argument that Persaud made a difference for the PNC-led list in the 2015 general elections because of his social and legal advocacy in the Corentyne area. He was well liked in 2015 and he is well loved now by the people of Corentyne. In the books of the majority of the people of Corentyne, Charrandas Persaud is their hero for his willingness to stand up to the current oppression in the sugar belt.
Boston can better serve himself if he understands the concept that you should only resort to legal distortions if your commitment to humanity, the rule of law and politics is shallow. If your commitment to humanity, politics and the rule of law is deep, then you need not be afraid to speak the truth.
Boston’s presentation was an unfortunate performance and it highlights what danger lies ahead. These 8 per cent of folks will stop at nothing to keep the status quo in place, where a minority has imposed their ways on a majority since December 21, 2018. But if precedence from the CCJ is my guide, then we all will learn shortly how to put constitutional order back in place.
Win or lose, the judgment will be good for Guyana. Therefore, I call on all law-abiding Guyanese to accept the judgement. Win or lose, the politicians must meet the people at the ballot box shortly to settle this situation once and for all. At the end of the day, the voters of Guyana know best and we did not need to spend over $100 million in legal fees to know this fact.