…on AFC’s third term
he AFC’s National Executive Conference this Saturday offers Guyanese the opportunity to dissect an issue that’s also in front of the judiciary at the highest level – the infamous “Third term case”. But with the AFC’s case being at a forum where we don’t have to get into all the tiresome “whereas” and citations that are dragged into courts, we can look directly at the arguments and “pick sense from nonsense”.
The issue, brought up by a member of the AFC in the court of public opinion via a letter to the press, points out the intent of the AFC constitution was to open up participation in its executive by limiting the number of terms executives may consecutively serve to two. So he objected to Khemraj Ramjattan putting his hand up for a “third term” since he’d just completed two terms consecutively.
Now, we’re not even talking about breaching the gentleman’s agreement on rotating the top spot between African and Indian incumbents – to signal to the electorate the party’s “multiracial” cred. With the AFC snogging seven Ministries and all sorts of goodies by providing “Indian” camouflage to the PNC, one can understand them not pressing “multiracial” pretentions. A bird in the hand and all that!
But in the case of Ramjattan’s “third term” bid, he and Trotman – being lawyers, but more pertinently not trusting each other – were careful to have a written stipulation in their constitution. To wit: “The various senior positions of the AFC, including those in the National Executive, Regions and Groups ought to be rotated as far as is possible so that no member is allowed to serve more than two consecutive terms in the same office, so as to ensure a broader activism in leadership positions by the membership.”
So, guess what’s Ramjattan’s riposte? (Hey! …no prizes for answering this no-brainer!!) The prohibition isn’t “mandatory”!! And this brings us to the same issue-writ-large being decided in the Appellate Court. Ramjattan, like those who’re contesting Justice Ian Chang’s ruling, is taking the old, procrustean descriptive approach to the interpretation of constitutions. If the Article says, “as far as possible”, the semantic ambiguity gives Ramjattan wriggle room to justify his third term.
But what Chang – following modern Jurisprudential and sociological developments – did was to ask a simple question: who ultimately have the power to interpret, amend or even change foundational concepts in a constitution? And Chang ruled, only the people (here members of the AFC) who’re sovereign.
Not their representatives – like MP’s or leaders, like ambitious Ramjattan. If changes are necessary, let there be a referendum! Power to the people! No dictator!
…on Ministers’ scholarships
Your Eyewitness sees the same disingenuous disjuncture between substance and mechanistic procedures in the awarding of scholarships to sitting ministers of the Government. Can anyone in their wildest dreams (sitting ministers excluded!) think when policies were written for the awarding of scholarships, sitting ministers were eligible?
Right off the bat, aren’t ministers effectively CEO’s of massive departments? Whatever time they take off – on or off the job – is time they should be spending on the people’s business. And if they don’t take massive time-offs to earn PhD’s, then all they are getting are fake certificates from “paper mill” schools. And we shouldn’t be paying $3.3 million annually for “cock” degrees.
Then, candidates for scholarships are generally eligible because of financial need or outstanding performance. After that 50 per cent salary increase in salaries, plus housing, electricity and all sorts of allowances, we can strike “need”.
Outstanding performance? Could we see those who applied but didn’t do as well?
…on national progress?
Old people say, “If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.” From its actions since coming into Office, the PNC-led Government has abandoned its “unity government spiel” and decided to go it alone.
Unfortunately, they aren’t even “going fast” – except getting corrupted!
