Category: Letters to the editor

Dear Editor,

I welcome the openness with which retired Chancellor Carl Singh has sought to explain the paralysis of the Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC). Unfortunately, the explanations sound less like accountability and more like excuses.

By lamenting the delays in obtaining fans and paper, Chancellor Singh’s comments fail to reflect the seriousness of a Commission established pursuant to a constitutional mandate. Each commissioner is paid some $200,000 per month, for what has so far amounted to the occasional meeting. The Chair, no doubt, enjoys a substantial package. Are we to believe that this generous remuneration is justified by “orientation” sessions and tutorials on the Constitution? The University of Guyana runs an entire semester on constitutional law, and that is only part of the subject. If the CRC, populated by lawyers, ministers, and professionals, truly needs basic instruction before starting its work, then the undertaking is amateurish in the extreme.

Editor, this would be laughable if the exercise were not so important and so costly. I wrote in my letter of 3rd September 2025 that the 1999 Commission, working under greater constraints, delivered a 300-page report in six months after wide consultation and expert engagement. By contrast, this body has been in place for over a year, supported by a Secretariat, funded by Parliament, and armed with the benefit of unfinished business from its predecessor. Yet it suspended meetings until after elections, in breach of both Article 119A of the Constitution and the Commission’s own Act.

This is not what Guyanese expect from a body entrusted with strengthening democracy, the limitations of which are exposed daily. A professionally managed Commission should have long provided a costed work plan, which I am certain the Ministry of Finance would have no difficulty funding. To hide behind “teething problems” is simply unacceptable.

Now that the matter has been brought to the fore, the CRC must stop hiding behind self-imposed restrictions. It must report to the National Assembly, publish a timetable, engage the public, and get on with its mandate. Anything less is a betrayal of the people and a waste of taxpayers’ money.

This culture that we can waste public funds because we have “oil money” must be nipped in the bud. The CRC must set the example of how public funds must be usefully spent, not why systems of accountability and transparency are needed, as in this case. 

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

Last Friday’s decision of the Chief Justice (ag.) in a case brought by Krystal Hadassah Fisher, a poor, ordinary woman voter from the hinterland, causes me serious concerns. That it may have been initiated and advanced by Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), one of the smaller parties contesting tomorrow’s elections, is irrelevant. The court’s language about “false assertion” and its description of the argument as a “grossly disingenuous” makes me understand why some legal personalities in Guyana who have participated in litigation in more civil jurisdictions, are unwilling to appear in our courts.

The applicant has already given notice of appeal, and the matter will be litigated further. But the issue that most troubles me is the cost of two million dollars which the court ordered the woman to pay, a sum perhaps many times her net worth. Worse, she has been given less than two weeks to produce the money.

Even if the payment will be borne by FGM, the decision does more than dispose of a case: it risks closing the doors of constitutional and administrative justice to all but the wealthy. It also flies in the face of the ruling by our highest court in Ramon Gaskin v Minister of Natural Resources [2024 CCJ 14 (AJ) GY], where the CCJ expressly refused to award costs against Gaskin even though he had lost at every stage of the case. The court explained that citizens who engage in public interest litigation perform a public service. That decision was notable in that the issue of cost was addressed by three of the five judges who presided over the matter.

My other concern is the approach by the local court in addressing the Krystal Fisher action. While I have not had the benefit of a reading of the decision, its approach appears at odds with the constitutional philosophy articulated in Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher [1980] AC 319, which Caribbean courts and the CCJ have consistently treated with deference. That case established that constitutions are sui generis instruments requiring generous, purposive interpretation to give life to citizens’ rights. In the Krystal Fisher case, the decision reflected a narrow, literalist approach that puts technical form over democratic substance.

Some in our society may prefer the fossilisation of the Burnham Constitution with its ambiguities, flaws, and dictatorial features. By punishing litigants who challenge those ambiguities, the Court unwittingly contributes to that fossilisation. Worse, the court seems unwilling to acknowledge the egregious and piecemeal drafting of our electoral laws. The principle of access to justice requires that no citizen should be penalised for ambiguities Parliament has failed to cure; the courts should be the first to highlight such deficiencies, not punish those who expose them.

Worryingly, this is not an isolated development. Only recently, a different court awarded costs of one million dollars against two citizens – including one politician – who had approached the court in good faith. The cumulative effect is unmistakable: a trend of punitive costs orders that discourage litigation brought by citizens. This risks making constitutional justice a privilege for the solvent few whose interest is generally limited to self-interest.

Access to justice is the lifeblood of democracy; to drain it with punitive costs is to suffocate it and rob it of its vibrancy, and of the expansion of opportunities and further development of society. Both of which are badly needed in Guyana.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

Your article “Constitutional Reform Commission suspends work until after elections” (S/N Sept. 9, 2025) should trouble every Guyanese. I am particularly disappointed because I saluted the appointment of former Chancellor Carl Singh to lead the process, despite the politicisation of the membership of the Commission with party persons and handpicked members of civil society. Probably the most inappropriate was then attorney-at-law Dr. Kim Kyte as the representative of women and Mr. Adrian Anamayah, as farmers’ representative.

The twenty-one-member Commission is supported by a full Secretariat and a big fat budget. Among the members are some of the country’s most respected legal minds – including Justice Singh, the Head of the Bar Association, the Attorney-General, Senior Counsel, prominent attorneys-at-law and hand-picked representatives of civil society. With such talent and authority, the people of Guyana are entitled to expect diligence and progress.

Instead, more than a year after its establishment, the Commission has little to show beyond reported orientation sessions and internal familiarisation exercises. To compound the situation, the members have decided to “suspend work until after the General and Regional Elections.” As if that is not absurd enough, the Commission appears to be in breach of article 19 A of the Constitution and the Constitution Reform Commission Act, No. 16 of 2022 which require the Commission to make periodic reports to the National Assembly.

The collective failure of the Commission is doubly shameful. The 1999 Commission was sworn in on January 22, 1999, and by July 17 of that year it delivered its 300-page report to the National Assembly having received and analysed scores of submissions – some running to several pages – consulted widely, engaged local and foreign experts.

That body, operating under greater constraints, delivered results. Today, many of its recommendations remain unfinished business. Therefore, this Commission was not required to begin from zero, or as they say, reinvent the wheel. Unlike the 1999 Commission, the current Commission, had a body of material and unfinished business on which it could build.

Worse, Guyanese are reminded that both major parties – which have nine direct representatives and several indirect representatives – promised constitutional reform in their manifestos of 2015, repeated the pledge in 2020, and again in 2025. To now preside over this spectacle of delay and inertia is to insult the intelligence of the people.

Editor, this Commission is acting like our politicians – treating constitutional reform as something that is optional. In fact, constitutional reform aims to strengthen democracy, protect rights, improve government effectiveness, and enhance legitimacy by updating outdated institutions.

As a citizen, I take the liberty to call on the Chairperson, as an immediate act, to direct the Secretariat to prepare the draft of its first periodic report to the National Assembly, in accordance with article 119 A of the Constitution. That report should also include its schedule of national consultations and a clear timetable for the delivery of its terms of reference in the form of a final report to the National Assembly no later than twelve months hence.

The ineptitude that has characterised the past ten years in almost every constitutional body but one, every parliamentary body, and every statutory body, must end. Chairperson Singh must make himself available to the media, report to the National Assembly and ensure that his Commission not only does not waste taxpayers’ money but deliver on this critical function which it undertook.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

There has been much debate – and concern – about the conditions which Commonwealth citizens must meet to qualify to vote in Guyana’s elections. This issue is addressed in Article 59 of the Constitution of Guyana which states:

“Subject to the provisions of article 159 (being registered as an elector), every person may vote at an election if he or she is of the age eighteen years or upwards and is either a citizen of Guyana or a Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana.” Emphasis added.

Article 159 (3) goes on to provide in a roundabout, double negative way that a person shall not be so qualified unless he or she is a non-citizen Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana and has been so resident for a period of one year before the qualifying date. While 159 (3) not only appears to offer some clarification – and is by international standards quite liberal – the requirement of domicile qualifies the one-year residency which is not further defined. It does not say that residency means continuous, or if not continuous, for one year during the past X or Y years.

Unlike domicile, residency is often a practical rather than a strictly legal matter. Domicile on the other hand, is a very strict concept. A person is born with a domicile which is called his domicile of origin. That status can be changed to another domicile, known as a domicile of choice, but the conditions are onerous, as ruled in a UK tax case. In that case, a man born in Halifax, Canada in 1910 who served in the RAF from 1932 to 1959 married an English woman in 1946 and lived in England for decades but always intended to return to Canada if his wife died before him.

The tax authorities claimed that he had acquired a domicile of choice in England where he intended to reside indefinitely, if not perpetually. And that his intention to return to Canada if his wife died was too uncertain to negative the acquisition of domicile of choice. The Chancery Division of the High Court agreed with the tax authorities, but its decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal which held that since the taxpayer intended to return to Canada if he survived his wife, he had not acquired an English domicile.

If we apply that principle to the Bajan who is a permanent employee with CARICOM in Guyana but who intends eventually to leave Guyana, that person would be resident in Guyana during that time but not domiciled and resident in Guyana. The same would be true of the Trinidadian or Indian or Bangladeshi construction or oil sector worker.

Even if such a person was mistakenly registered as a voter, the Constitution states that that person is not eligible to vote in our elections. If GECOM had improperly registered that person, it must take corrective action and ensure that the person does note vote. I cannot see how to allow an unqualified person to vote would be the lesser of two evils.

GECOM should address this matter to remove any lingering concerns citizens and the parties might have.    

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

The PPP/C’s elections campaign has taken a nasty turn. One arm has leaned on disguised vote-buying and selective, distorted facts. Another has descended into language so coarse and abusive as to be unprintable. It is not confined to fringe voices. Leonard Craig, Joseph Hamilton, and even the Vice President himself have joined in.

Minister Vindhya Persaud, to her credit, spoke out against the conduct. But hers was a lone voice, quickly drowned by the noise of the campaign. The party or its women’s arm took no corrective action. GECOM, which is supposed to safeguard fairness, has remained silent. The Ethnic Relations Commission, which had only weeks ago promoted a code of conduct, also looked away.

What is even more striking is who has been asked to carry the harshest lines. It is not the party’s leadership, but campaigners given licence to say what the leaders will not. Their role is clear: to reach certain voters while proving their loyalty and securing their place. They are being used, while the leadership hides its hands.

The problem runs deeper. The PPP continues to shelter individuals facing serious criminal charges, including sexual misconduct. When vulgarity, falsehoods, and compromised candidates are tolerated, the damage goes beyond politics. It corrodes society itself. It lowers standards, teaches the young that indecency is strength, and normalises such behaviour.

Some argue these tactics come from desperation or fear of the opposition. But fear cannot justify filth. The contrast between them is clear: opposition parties, even the one most vilified, are running restrained campaigns, focusing on issues more than personalities. They have shown that an election can be fought without dragging the nation into the gutter.

This matters because once such behaviour is accepted, it is not easily reversed. Today it is vulgar language, tomorrow it may be worse – harming members of the opposition and their supporters. If standards collapse, elections will no longer be contests of ideas but battles of abuse. That is the road the PPP/C is taking the nation. 

This is not healthy politics. It is distortion and vulgarity, a degradation of our society and its standards. Decent voters should recoil – and show their disapproval come September 1.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram