Reminded by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo that, in accordance with the ruling and consequential orders of the CCJ, the President and his Cabinet should have resigned, the National Assembly dissolved, and a date for General and Regional Elections announced, Caretaker President David Granger replied, “Your requests are being handled by the Attorney General in light of the constitution and the relevant rulings of the Caribbean Court of Justice.”
This is simply another example of Granger resorting to what George Orwell, in his classic satire of the workings of a totalitarian society — the technique that was later dubbed “doublespeak” — described thusly: “Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words”; and one scholar elaborated: “What is really important in the world of doublespeak is the ability to lie, whether knowingly or unconsciously, and to get away with it; and the ability to use lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those that don’t fit an agenda or program.”
The first thing to note in the doublespeak of Caretaker President Granger is that the Opposition Leader was not making a “request” of him; he was pointing out the need for his to follow the ruling of the highest court of the land on the consequences of a successful no-confidence motion, as adumbrated in Art 106 of the Constitution. It is worth quoting the Court in full, lest Granger be given the benefit of the doubt: that there was some ambiguity in the ruling that needed his Attorney General to “examine”.
The Court itself felt compelled to specifically point out: “The judiciary interprets the Constitution. But, as we intimated in our earlier judgment, these particular provisions require no gloss on the part of the Court in order to render them intelligible and workable.” The word “gloss” in the legal sense means a note or commentary on a passage that is intended to explain or illustrate its meaning.” Even a cursory perusal of Art 106 (6) makes this clear: “The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence”. We note that the resignations are not made optional, but mandatory, since it is preceded by the imperative “shall” rather than “may”.
The Court emphasised, “Their meaning is clear, and it is the responsibility of constitutional actors in Guyana to honour them.” But to belabour the directives of Art 106 (6) and (7), the Court took pains to explain:
“Upon the passage of a vote of no confidence, the Article requires the resignation of the Cabinet, including the President”. The Article goes on to state, among other things, that “notwithstanding such resignation, the Government shall remain in office and that an election shall be held “within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine…”
“The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has the responsibility to conduct that election, and GECOM, too, must abide by the provisions of the Constitution.”
Caretaker President Granger is deploying doublespeak to cover his blatant disregard for the Constitution, as interpreted by the highest Court, which was simply gilding the lily. Rather than taking the right and moral path and prepare to face the electorate for their judgement on his administration, the caretaker President took refuge in the CCJ’s patent efforts not to embarrass him by assuming he would do so.
There are some who have claimed there is an apparent contradiction between the resignation of the President and Cabinet (Art 106 (6)) and the Government continuing until elections in three months (Art 106 (7)), but the CCJ addressed this succinctly: “By convention, the government is expected to behave during this interim period as a caretaker, and so restrain the exercise of its legal authority.”
