The Granger New Year message was nauseating, and as empty as it was – Kaieteur News

The Granger New Year message was nauseating, and as empty as it was an illusion

Dear Editor,
I read the comprehensive and tiring New Year message of former President David Granger.
It chronicles a summary of alleged achievements made by the Coalition Government.
He offered explanations, not justifications, for the unruly violations of the Constitution, the unprecedented abolition of the rule of law and the relentless attempts to change the results of the 2020 elections to bring about a government, which he and his Coalition Government committed.
I was present in Guyana during the five-year coalition rule.
I was involved at all levels, in the social, political and economic oppressions that occurred.
To me, Mr. Granger’s speech read like a fairy tale from a far country. If the enthusiastically expressed achievements had actually happened, Mr Granger would undoubtedly have been President today.
The test of the dessert lies while eating. Mr. Granger is not the President.
The electorate voted strongly against him and his Coalition Government.
That reality conflicts violently with the factual basis of his discourse, doing the same with child, as it is authentic.
Such uninterrupted cruising must not be left on the public record without proper rejoicing.
From start to finish, Mr Granger insults the intelligence of all who are familiar with the reality of life in Guyana from 2015 to 2020. The audacity and arrogance were unquestionable but still a reminder bleak of how far it was and still is from the majority of the population. Indeed, it was a cerebral feature of his Presidency.
Nowhere in the democratic world would a political Head of State be returned to the government by the electorate, which failed to maintain a dedicated engagement with its nation’s press corps for over three years. Such rebellion is the perversion of democracy.
Perhaps the most disturbing is the proportion of speech dedicated to the preamble to the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections, and its outcome. Mr Granger perseveres to paint a narrative that is radically different from that seen and experienced by Guyana and the world, and that Mr. Granger and his cabal rigging were condemned and censured by all local stakeholder organizations , the entire diplomatic community, all major international organizations in the Caribbean and the Americas, as well as a hundred governments worldwide.
This unsophisticated stunt is enough reason for Mr Granger and the Coalition Government to never come close to power for the foreseeable future.
He argues that the delay in holding the elections after the passing of the No Confidence Motion of 21st December 2018, was “due to the willingness of the Elections Commission.” He could not have forgotten that the exact Elections Commission, on December 27, 2018, announced its readiness to hold those elections.
Mr Granger believes that Guyanese were so ignorant that they did not recognize that the Chairman, to whom he had been unconstitutionally placed, was acting his master’s diktat as the Commission’s subsequent allegation of lack of readiness. Indeed, if the Caribbean Court of Justice had not declared the Chairman unlawfully appointed, Mr. Granger might have succeeded in his fraudulent design.
Mr Granger spends almost a page and a half, detailing the litigation that was instituted after those elections.
It conveys the impression that there are obstacles to the democratic process.
He omitted to disclose that litigation protected the will of the electorate and saved democracy. He does not write a single word about Clairmont Mingo’s flamboyant attempts to use a fraudulent spreadsheet, instead of a Poll Statement, to tabulate Region 4 results, as required by law.
It neglects to report that this fraudulent act committed by Mingo in the presence of party officials, election observers, and the diplomatic community, prompted the first court case.
Nor did he reveal that, despite orders made by the Chief Justice, Mingo had completed fraudulent tables of results, which gave Granger an electoral victory.
He omitted from his narrative that he agreed to a national recount, but then graciously tried to deny that agreement; and even when the recount came and was observed by the CARICOM Team, which it described as the most “legitimate interlocutors” and confirmed its accuracy, legality and credibility, the Team report charged and disavowed the recount results .
Mr Granger refused to write about the powers which the Chief Election Officer unlawfully conferred on him to prepare a report, not of the votes cast by the electorate, but of votes which he, the CEO, decided were valid.
This last travesty led to even more litigation.
The Caribbean Court of Justice was forced to reprimand the CEO and to remind him that he was not a “sole custodian” but a subordinate officer of the Commission, subject and subordinate to the Commission’s authority and directions.
Mr Granger describes this horrific period from March 2 to August 2 “as necessary to ensure the implementation of the Constitution … We believe that the measures we have taken may be fortified democracy …” Sadly, these words cannot stemming from delusional thinking that is cloaked in itself. authoritative cocoon. Fortunately, the world saw and experienced a different reality. For this simple reason, without more, Mr Granger is where he is today, and where he and those of his ilk should stay, for a long time in the future – out of Government.
Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC