Copyright stabroeknews
Dear Editor, I refer to Neville Bissember’s letter of October 26, “Mr. Norton is no longer Leader of the Opposition.” While Mr. Bissember offers an interesting constitutional interpretation, his argument overlooks both the purpose and the spirit of Article 184 of Guyana’s Constitution. Article 184(2)(a) explicitly provides that the office of the Leader of the Opposition (LOO) becomes vacant only if the holder ceases to be a member of the Assembly for reasons other than a dissolution of Parliament. That phrasing is deliberate. It was drafted to ensure that the LOO continues in office between dissolution and the convening of a new Parliament — precisely to preserve continuity of constitutional dialogue and prevent an administrative vacuum. The President’s duty to consult the LOO on judicial and other appointments is a continuing obligation, not one that lapses every time Parliament is dissolved. If that were so, the executive would be left without a constitutional counterpart during transitions — an outcome wholly inconsistent with the design of a functioning democracy. To suggest that Mr. Norton’s office vanished automatically upon dissolution is to read the Constitution in isolation rather than as a coherent whole. The framers clearly intended that both the President and the LOO remain operational in their essential functions until successors are duly elected or appointed. Anything else would paralyze governance. This debate is not about Mr. Norton personally, but about constitutional stability. The continuity of dialogue between the Presidency and the Opposition is vital to maintaining checks and balances, especially regarding senior judicial appointments. Suresh Dookhie
