Dear Editor,
Mr. Neville Bissember’s latest letter on the office of the Leader of the Opposition reads more like a courtroom brief than a public explanation. Sometimes, these learned gentlemen can make even the clearest of texts sound ambiguous. It was not long ago that some of them, with straight faces, argued all the way to the CCJ that 33 is not a majority of 65. Mr. Bissember now seems to be travelling that same path.
The Constitution could not be clearer. Article 184(2)(a) specifically states that the Leader of the Opposition vacates office if he ceases to be a member of the Assembly “otherwise than by a dissolution of Parliament.” Those words mean exactly what they say and require no interpretation — dissolution does not end the office. If it did, the clause would simply have omitted that exception.
To argue otherwise is an attempt to turn black into white. The framers inserted that phrase precisely to ensure continuity during a dissolution, so that constitutional consultations could still occur. Without a Leader of the Opposition, the President would have no lawful counterpart for the many appointments that require consultation. The State would, in effect, have no opposition at all — an absurd outcome the framers could never have intended.
The 1966 Constitution made this continuity explicit through a separate proviso. The 1980 drafters folded that same protection directly into Article 184(2)(a). The safeguard remains — only in more streamlined language.
And even if one were to indulge in interpretation, it must be a liberal interpretation, not a restrictive one. A democracy should never find itself without an Opposition, even during an interregnum — that pause between dissolution and the next sitting of Parliament.
In short, Mr. Aubrey Norton remains Leader of the Opposition until a successor is elected. That is not a partisan view; it is a plain reading of the Constitution and a safeguard of democratic continuity.
In either event, both sides have made their points and hopefully, this issue never reaches the stage of seeking a court opinion. That would be as embarrassing as having a court tell us 33 is a majority of 65. — I will therefore consider this my last comment on the subject.