PPP/C is not a dictatorship and will never be

GEORGETOWN, Jul 8 1999 (IPS) - It started back in 1997, but was thrown off the front burner as preparations for general elections gripped the country and, eventually, in the aftermath of civil unrest that stemmed from opposition questions about the fairness of the polls. But with the full backing and participation of civil society this time, the latest national effort to rewrite the country’s controversial 1980 constitution is underway and there is every indication that the 65- member house could begin discussing it in about six weeks. The parliamentary-appointed Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC) has spent several months taking written and oral evidence from nearly every section of the society and has sent teams deep into the heavily- forested interior to listen to the views of nationals on what the new document should contain. One reason why almost everyone wants a new constitution has to do with opposition dislike for American-born President Janet Jagan. ... The 1980 constitution, ironically written by the main opposition People’s National Congress (PNC) when it was in government in the 1980s, left a gaping loophole that allows anyone with Guyanese citizenship, whether the person is born here or not, to run and become the head of state of this former British colony. Now the PNC is among those clamouring for changes. ... One of the tenets of the accord signed in January 1998 was the holding of elections in 2001, nearly two years ahead of schedule and the writing of a new constitution that would cater for some form of power sharing and one that reduces the vast powers of a head of state. So far, the commission has heard from dozens of groups, including the Guyana Defence Force, churches, indigenous organisations and individuals. It is now examining submissions; dividing them into recommendations that were made by a majority of persons and going through them point by point. This is in the context of a recent threat from opposition leader Desmond Hoyte that his party would take to the streets if it is convinced that the PPP or any organisation sympathetic to it, does anything to stall the process. So far nothing is in the way and CRC Chairman Ralph Ramkarran and other officials are even hopeful that everything will be completed in time. “There is a likelihood that the recommendations will be submitted by the July 17 deadline and in the event of the writing of the report not being completed, commissioners are likely to seek a parliamentary extension to complete that aspect of the process,” said commission spokesman Nills Campbell. Later this week the commission will look at recommendations about the presidency and the extensive powers that come with the land’s highest office as contained in the 1980 constitution. That document was a rewrite on the 1966 independence constitution originally penned by the British colonial government. Guyana’s head of state cannot be held legally accountable for either criminal or civil offenses committed during and after office, a fact that has irked large sections of the society. Even the PPP has suggested that criminal prosecution be available to the public, but there should be some form of protection for the president to shield the office from trivial lawsuits, officials say. To indicate their concern about the country’s partisan and racial political climate, civil society representatives have recommended that the head of state revert to titular responsibilities as was the case before and that most of the executive powers be vested in the prime minister and cabinet. The prime ministership is the second most powerful political position in the country, but neither of the two major parties is expected to back this submission judging from the lukewarm reception the recommendation got at CRC meetings. One popular constitutional reference that is unanimously likely to get the green light is the deletion of reference to Guyana as a country in transition from capitalism to socialism. Also popular across all lines are proposals for the dropping of the words “Cooperative Republic” from the country’s official name. “It is a good idea that the constitution is being changed,” says retailer S.K Singh. “It is part of the reason for our problems in Guyana, but they also have to do something about racial hatred.”

Attorney-at-Law, Anil Nandlall (left) and Attorney General Basil Williams A day after Attorney General Basil Williams filed papers to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) asking it to rule that it cannot legally hear Guyana’s latest election related case, People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Attorney-at-Law Anil Nandlall was Thursday adamant that the regional court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. He explained that the 2004 CCJ Act provides for, among other things, an interpretation of Guyana’s constitution as well as a provision that saves decisions that were final in the domestic courts before that law had been passed. “That is a transitory provision and that speaks only to decisions that were made by the Guyana Court of Appeal prior to 2004, prior to the Act coming into force,” he said. Nandlall added that the Guyana Court of Appeal’s decision was made in 2020 and “clearly” not before the Act came into force and so that provision does not apply. The CCJ panel of judges is Thursday afternoon expected to hold a case management session with lawyers for all of the parties in the appeal filed by PPP General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo and presidential candidate, Irfaan Ali. The PPP wants the CCJ to throw out a decision by the Guyana Court of Appeal earlier this week that the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177(2)(b) of the Constitution of Guyana be interpreted to mean “more valid votes are cast in relation to the election held on 2nd March 2020”. Nandlall also cited a provision of the CCJ Act to say that the appeal qualifies as a “matter of its great general or public importance.” Justice Brassington Reynolds, in his analysis, states that “accordingly, I find that GECOM (Guyana Elections Commission) does have responsibility to determine the final credible count of the results, it would be reasonable to presume that that final credible count would require both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of reports and the summary of observations submitted to the commission in compliance with Order 60 of 2020.” The observations refer to alleged voter impersonation of deceased and people overseas, missing voters’ lists and statutory documents to allow for reconciliation of votes cast . Nandlall, a former Attorney General of Guyana, further contended that the CCJ would be obliged to hear the upcoming appeal because it would only apply to legal decisions. “It will not apply to intra vires and lawful decisions of the Guyana Court. It will not apply in a case where the matter is contrived and dress-made to fit into that narrow jurisdiction because such a matter will lead to a decision that is a nullity, a decision that is void ab initio (from the beginning) and any such decision would be liable to be set aside by the court,” he said. On that basis, Nandlall said Jagdeo and Ally are arguing that the case by APNU+AFC supporter, Eslyn David, in the Guyana Court of Appeal has nothing to do with Article 177 of the Guyana Constitution but about the qualification of the election of a sitting President. He further argued that the CCJ has jurisdiction because lawyers for the appellants would contend that the Guyana Court of Appeal did not act within its jurisdiction. The CCJ has since issued an interim order barring GECOM from doing anything, including declaring results of the March 2, 2020 general and regional elections, until that court hears and determines the case. But Attorney General Basil Williams, in court papers filed on Wednesday, asked the CCJ to find that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal by Bharrat Jagdeo and Irfaan Ali of the People’s Progressive Party. He argues that the CCJ lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Article 177 of the Guyana Constitution excludes all other courts, including the regional court, which is Guyana’s final appellate. The Attorney General is also asking the CCJ not to grant any coercive orders being sought by Jagdeo and Ally because the Court has previously decided that it would not give coercive orders against GECOM or give directives. The CCJ has already issued an interim order blocking GECOM from declaring election results until the hearing and determination of the Jagdeo-Ally appeal. If Jagdeo and Ally win this case at the CCJ, Nandlall said it would pave the way for GECOM to receive the valid votes from the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)-scrutinised recount process in keeping with directives by the seven-member Commission. He said the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield would “have no authority to depart from those directions.” Based on the recount, of the 460,352 valid votes cast, the incumbent A Partnership for National Unity+Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) has won 217,920 and the People’s Progressive Party 233,336. The three ‘joinder’ parties- A New and United Guyana (ANUG), Liberty and Justice Party (LJP) and The New Movement (TNM) got a total of 5,214‬ votes. After last Monday’s decision by the Guyana Court of Appeal, the Chief Elections Officer subtracted more than 115,000 votes in his tabulation that gave A Partnership for National Unity+Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) a one-seat majority in the 65-seat National Assembly, the PPP. Overall, Lowenfield has removed 115,844 of the 460,352 valid votes cast based on what he described as “guidance from the Court of Appeal” in its decision that more votes means more valid votes when one considers the gazetted recount order. The PPP, with 166,343 votes, was given 31 seats APNU+AFC 32 seats with 171,825 votes and the three small-The New Movement, A New and United Guyana, and Liberty and Justice Party- a total of 3,348 votes.

The appearance in the press on 15 th August of a notice dated 23 rd June, 2026, signed by Attorney-at-Law Javed Shadick, Secretary to the Constitution Reform Commission, is the first public indication in some time that the Carl Singh-led Commission is still alive and, after more than two years in office, has finally reached the first stage of public consultation. The notice invites written proposals until 31 st December, after which comes the second stage – public engagements. More remarkable than the timetable is that the matters on which submissions are invited are substantially a wholesale transposition of the mandate Parliament gave the Commission in Act No. 16 of 2022. This means that nearly four years after the Act and more than two years after the Commission was sworn in, it has arrived at the starting point Parliament prescribed for it. This is not a snail’s pace. ... Nor is the Commission short of personnel, experience or political clout. Its twenty-one members include five Government nominees, all Ministers when appointed and already remunerated from the public purse, among them Vice-Chair Gail Teixeira and Attorney General Anil Nandlall, S.C.; four Opposition nominees; attorneys Timothy Jonas, S.C. and Kamal Ramkarran; and private-sector representative Ramesh Persaud. Responsibility for the Commission’s dismal performance is therefore collective. It is inconceivable that these politicians, professionals and businesspeople would tolerate such delay, cost and paucity of output if their money was being spent. There is an even more fundamental problem with the Commission’s composition. The 2025 elections swept away the political configuration on which it was constituted. Nigel Hughes, to his credit, resigned when the AFC disappeared from Parliament. Yet, the representative from the Joinder parties – ANUG, Liberty Justice Party and The New Movement – none of which is represented in the National Assembly post 2025 remains on the Commission while WIN, with sixteen seats and now the principal Opposition party, has no representative at all. The Attorney General himself recognised the problem. In October 2025, Mr. Nandlall acknowledged that the Act had been drafted for the previous parliamentary configuration and said that amendments had already been made to a draft Bill to reflect the new Opposition arrangement. Yet the Commission is now proceeding with public consultation without that acknowledged defect having been corrected. The absurdity does not end there. Whatever recommendations the Commission eventually produces must enter the parliamentary process. WIN now holds sixteen of the twenty-nine Opposition seats. The Commission is therefore attempting to devise constitutional reform without the principal Opposition party, only eventually to send its proposals to a National Assembly in which that party’s support may be indispensable. Measured against the time, resources and output, this performance amounts to gross incompetence. While the Commission sits and waits more than four months for submissions – perhaps expecting the public to function at a pace similar to that of the Commission – the Attorney General and the Minister responsible for Finance should produce and publish a full accounting of expenditure and remuneration, while the Commission publishes its meetings and attendance, research undertaken and substantive work produced. This Commission has had ample time to carry out a detailed assessment of the 1999 Report – including the submissions, the action taken on its recommendations, and the issues arising from their implementation or non-implementation. Where is its assessment of what was implemented, what was not, what worked, what failed and why? That should have been both its starting point and part of its invitation to the public. Those who still hope for something useful from this exercise should remember that two genuine heavyweights – Haslyn Parris and Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine – were centrally involved in preparing the 1999 Report. But that was not all – and here I stand guilty of omissions. The Commission drew on constitutional experts including Justice Albert Sachs of South Africa, Professor Kathleen Mahoney of Canada, Anund Hylland of Norway, and our own Professor Keith Massiah, Professor Harold Lutchman and Professor Rudolph James. ... That Guyanese may have forgotten the existence of the Commission about which he spoke so confidently is no excuse for its failure to account. I am not usually a pessimist, but on the application of any reasonable test – including the Attorney General’s own metric – the Carl Singh-led Constitution Reform Commission is already a colossal failure. Nothing in its record so far suggests to me any reasonable prospect of redemption. The question therefore is no longer whether this Commission needs more time. It is whether it should be permitted to continue in its present form. In my view, it should not. The present exercise should be ended and the task returned immediately to the constitutional Parliamentary Standing Committee for Constitutional Reform, where the political representation reflects the present National Assembly. That Committee can determine, transparently and with appropriate expert and civil-society participation, the arrangements for taking constitutional reform forward within a firm timetable and with proper accountability for public expenditure.