Trampling on the rule of law

It was recently revealed that some Ministers of the APNU/AFC Government have not submitted their financial declarations to the Integrity Commission. Among the reported delinquents is the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs. His failure, up to this point, to comply with a simple but mandatory requirement of all public officials epitomises the Government’s reluctance to abide by the rule of law, a seeming characteristic since May 2015.
Simply put, how can the person entrusted to advise and represent the Government on legal matters not abide by the said law he is expected to uphold? His actions, and those of the APNU/AFC coalition Government, further demonstrate a disinterest in complying with the rule of law. The numerous transgressions of the Constitution and its mandated processes during this Government’s tenure thus far reflect that inclination to so defy.
Just recently, the United States of America expressed concerns to the United Nations Human Rights Council over the APNU/AFC’s actions that may undermine democratic principles, including apparent misapplication of the Constitution and certain court rulings. That latest cause for concern by one of Guyana’s major donors may have summed up the APNU/AFC’s glaring trend of refusal to adhere to the Constitution and court rulings.
The wanton rejection of the final ruling and consequential orders of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) seems to be the pinnacle of that pattern. Such refusal has led to constitutionally due elections being held a year after their mandated time. Given APNU/AFC’s related actions, the said elections would probably have been held after a much longer period, had it not been for local and international pressure.
Despite being repeatedly called out, the Government, through President David Granger, manufactured reasons to defend its actions. While on the campaign trail, he even boasted of his desire to remove the constitutional provision for a no-confidence motion (NCM) if the coalition were to win the upcoming March 02 elections.
In a subsequent meeting, he touted that his APNU/AFC coalition must also be able to control the Regional Democratic Councils (RDC) and the Neighbourhood Democratic Councils (NDC) for effective governance. That clearly suggests a lack of involvement of persons or groups aside from APNU or AFC. In ways, it mirrors the infamous comment of the Chairperson of the People’s National Congress (PNC), who boldly proclaimed that jobs would only be given to persons of that Party and, reportedly, those who look like her.
These are very serious and dangerous developments that reek of a bourgeoning dictatorship. That historic characteristic of the PNC was unmistakably in action when Mr. Granger unilaterally and unconstitutionally appointed the immediate past Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), and through his preposterous claim that 33 is not a majority of 65 with regard to the NCM.
The intent to strip the Constitution of its provision for an NCM, thereby removing a major mechanism for accountability, speaks unambiguously to a desire to once again enshrine its dictatorial tendency. That may explain its actions in disregarding the Constitution since taking office in May 2015. In the said context, it could explain why the Attorney General and some other Ministers would see no need to make financial declarations to the Integrity Commission.
How else could it be explained? One can make a strong argument that if the APNU/AFC values the need to respect the law, then the declarations would have been filed. Similarly, elections would not have been held a year after they were constitutionally due.
What is even more worrying is the President’s lack of condemnation of the ongoing transgressions. That may be so because he himself may have led the way for the disregard of the country’s rule of law.
Just recently, in Essequibo, APNU/AFC’s activists covered the Opposition People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC) symbol with green and yellow cloth; the coalition’s colours. Those cups, in the form of drums, were mounted on electric poles and in other parts of the country.
From all understanding, desecration of a Party symbol could constitute an offence. Yet, a senior official, who heads the official government information arm, was reportedly boasting on social media of his comrades’ achievement in defiling the PPPC’s symbol. Instead of condemning, he encouraged.
That is yet another blatant example of ignoring the transgression of the rule of law. That would more than likely explain other actions of PPPC’s elections symbol and paraphernalia being removed and trampled upon, and some of its public meetings being disrupted without condemnation even from the President. The intimidation in Wismar, Mocha and Bagotstown, just to name a few, further epitomises the APNU/AFC’s continual disregard for the rule of law.
That may have given the free rein to some of its supporters and possibly to the Attorney General, who desperately tried to convince that 33 is not the majority of 65. Such, coming from that level, may have provided all the answers.