The Alliance For Change notes with concern and disappointment the pronouncements recently made by the newly picked PPP/C Presidential candidate Mr. Donald Ramotar to the effect that “Our Constitution is probably superior to many Constitutions in the world”. The AFC believes that such a statement reflects Mr. Ramotar’s inadequate knowledge of what obtains in 21st century democratic constitutions.
The AFC views Ramotar’s defense of the intoxicating immunities that President Jagdeo has enjoyed as shameful. The AFC has expressed profound disagreement with the following content of the Guyana constitution:
Article 182 (1) which says “subject to the provisions of article 180, the holder of the office of President shall not be personally answerable to any court for the performance of his office or for any act done in the performance of those functions and no proceeding, whether criminal or civil, shall be instituted against him in his personal capacity in respect thereof either during his term of office or thereafter.”
(2) Whilst any person holds or performs the functions of the office President no criminal proceeding shall be instituted or continued against him in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him in his private capacity and no civil proceedings shall be instituted or continued in respect of which relief is claimed against him for anything done or omitted to be done in his private capacity.
(3) Where provision is made by law limiting the time within which proceeding of any description may be brought against any person, the period during which any person holds or performs the functions of the office of president shall not be taken into account in calculating any period of time prescribed by that law for bringing any such proceeding as are mentioned in paragraph (2) against him.
The AFC believes that it is precisely these flawed and Burnham type immunities which have given President Jagdeo carte blanche to launch his venomous assault on all and sundry who have activated and excited his ire.
Such immunities do not promote and nurture responsibility and statesmanship in the holder of the office of President but rather inebriate such holder with a notion of unlimited power to be disposed and exhibited at his whim and fancy. The AFC submits that it is precisely such inebriation that Mr. Ramotar with much alacrity is awaiting to arrogate for himself.
We must recall that such immunities were established in this 1980 document by a PNC administration eager and striving to locate power in a small and central authority. In 2011, instead of charting an alternative course, the PPP is attempting the replicate the failed Burnham initiative.
From a review of the literature of the US Common Law, it could be recollected that in Mississippi v. Johnson, 1867, the Court first widely defined presidential immunity. The Marshall Court upheld the President’s right to function without judicial interference in the performance of his duties. It was deemed essential to the continuance of the Constitutional separation of powers that the president be allowed the freedom of performing his duties without the hindrance of judicial interference in the executive branch.
The Court ruled, however, that presidential immunity did not extend to actions that were not part of presidential function. Off duty, he was just as liable for private misconduct as any other United States citizen. Nixon was forced to produce tapes arising from the break-in at the Watergate Hotel that had more to do with his campaign and the cover-up of illegal wiretapping than to any official function, while Clinton was forced to face a civil sexual harassment suit arising from his behavior towards Paula Jones prior to his becoming president.
Thus, comments made at Babu Jaan and other party propaganda functions should fall outside of the scope of presidential immunity and this needs to be made explicitly clear in the constitution. The AFC will do this. We have noted in this regard a perceptive letter by Gaskin, Raymond. “President has no blanket immunity” Kaieteur News 27 March 2011. pp. 4 & 6.
Moreover we wish to inform the Guyanese electorate that Donald Ramotar has fully endorsed in the Parliament the extravagant and almost shocking pension package for the outgoing Jagdeo which Guyanese taxpayers will have to fund. When we have informed the Guyanese people of these profligate retirement rewards, at our community meetings throughout the country, they were aghast. At a community meeting in Enmore, flabbergasted residents even suggested that the AFC makes this issue the central plank of its campaign.
Such expression of horrific astonishment reveals a fundamental disconnect between the ordinary Guyanese and the wealthy PPP elites. This is, as we have indicated for some time, reflective of a complete abandonment of the originally espoused working class and egalitarian ideals.
In the AFC’s Action Plan, it is submitted that the present Constitution does not serve the best interest of the country and within the shortest possible time in office, the AFC will appoint a Commission to rewrite the Constitution with the full participation of the people.
The new constitution will put the necessary checks and balances in place to consolidate our ethos of liberal democracy. Freedom of speech, devolution of power and the Bill of Rights of our citizens will be enshrined in the document. The document shall provide processes to expose and penalize abuse of power, and corrupt activities. Our leaders shall be held to the rule of law in all their actions by this sacrosanct document.
Comments are closed