GHK Lall is self-righteous as he is vain and delusional

Dear Editor,
GHK Lall is as impertinent, as he has been, and is, generally agnostic. GHK Lall is as illogical, as he is patronising and condescending. And he, is (unwittingly, or otherwise) as much a condoning accessory after the fact to FRAUD, as those who actually perpetrated, or inspired it on March 2, 2020.
He is as self-righteous; as he is vain and delusional. I refer to, and extrapolate these characterizations, from his letter – “President Granger it is time to step down with honour” (SN, Sunday, July 5).

Editor, I say without one jot of doubt, that GHK Lall’s deluge of pitiful exhortations to President Granger, is nothing but a tangled web of deceit, weaved in some vain machination to deceive President Granger, to do the unthinkable: conceded the APNU+AFCs win, to the PPP/C. Rather than call on the fraudsters to concede; GHK Lall self-righteously, appeals to the Godliness of Mr. Granger, reminding him that he was “named after Kings: one of sacred scripture, and the other from literature’s timeless legends” (a veiled reference to the Israelite leader David, and Shakespeare’s King Arthur), in his tirade, that Mr. Granger, the intended victim of the PPP/C thwarted monstrous fraud, must be the one to concede; step down. What temerity; what impertinence; what ingratitude. GHK Lall does not even care that he has piously misinterpreted, and misapprehended the biblical story. God’s favoured David, defeated goliath (the philistine). David did not concede to Goliath’s false image of physical invincibility. Had David done so, the history of the Israelites might have been different. And, there is something of an alluring, instructive and illuminating analogy between the PPP/C seeming electoral invincibility based on false quantitative votes at the imperfect national recount, and Goliath’s defeat, (inspite his seeming physical invincibility) based on the sheer quality of the votes cast for the APNU+AFC.

And, so unfair is GHK Lall, he cannot even smell the stench of his Orwellian illogically, and unfairness towards President Granger. GHK Lall writes “It is time to step down with honour. I say to you today, Mr. President, be different today. I share the pained words of Al Gore in 2000. “I accept the finality of the outcome……… tonight for the sake of our unity as a people, I offer my concession”.

But what GHK Lall in his practice to deceive does not write so that his impressionable readers would be reminded, is that Al Gore (as the Democratic Presidential Candidate) it was, who took the election matter to Court (Gore v. Bush); he did not concede the Election, what he knew he had, on the evidence, won, candidate Al Gore it was, who sought, rightly, a judicial determination of that election hiatus that emerged from the electoral shenanigans in the electoral college system decisive state of Florida (where George H. Bush’s brother Geb was the Governor and had the decisive say as to recount etc.); and, that candidate Al Gore “concession” to George W. Bush (being a ritualistic dogma in the best traditions of American democratic culture) came ONLY AFTER Gore HAD EXHAUSTED ALL HIS JUDICIAL OPTIONS when the US Supreme Court gave a ruling favouring Bush. Paradoxically, it is candidate Ali (not President Granger) who is appealing an unappealable decision to the CCJ – a decision on the evidence of which, Mr. Granger has been constitutionally adviced by the CEO to be the winner, should he declared the winner by the chair of Gecom, and sworn in.

Here with us in Guyana, the 2020 GREs election matter is still sub judice (i.e before the Courts- the CCJ) the judicial options are not yet exhausted and yet, GHK Lall exhorts the President to do what Al Gore only did after exhausting his judicial options – concede! What, and to whom- the candidate who has unconstitutionally appealed to the CCJ!

And just like with Ramkarran, SC, for whom, conveniently, the most relevant and pointed article 177 (2) (b) does not seem to exist at all in his weekly tirade; for GHK Lall, neither the mountain of exposed fraud at the National Recount, nor the Court of Appeal decision in Eslyn David case (clarifying that “votes” in article 177 (2) (b) means VALID VOTES) seems, conveniently, not to exist. Both Ramkarran, SC and Lall are delusional. There is not one iota of evidence pointing to a view that any fraud was on polling day perpetrated, or inspired, by APNU+AFC. None. Notice that the Opposition has never sought to rebut the APNU+AFC narrative of fraud by the PPP/C, by pointing to any verifiable fact from which an inference could reasonably be drawn that on polling day, the APNU+AFC itself perpetrated, or inspired fraud. There is just no such evidence. (They withdrew their contempt action against Region 4 RO-Mingo; because the delivery of an impending judgement favourable to Mingo, was inevitable). So, I ask GHK Lall: who should be conceding-the intended victim of the fraud DAVID ARTHUR GRANGER – or the perpetrators? In all my thirty six (36) years as a qualified lawyer I have never heard of a victim of a crime (and electoral fraud is a crime) being required to show remorse; it is always the perpetrator of the crime. And as to the bait of an election petition being vainly dangled by the likes of Ramkarran, SC and GHK Lall I say this (albeit analogically): there is no law – not the Constitution, not statute, not Common Law – which requires that if you have evidence a competitor has used dope, you must allow him to be presented with the gold medal, and then only afterwards, seek to have him stripped of that gold medal on the basis of doping (Read max Mohamed’s brilliant satire “let the thief finish stealing before you call the cops” GC, Monday, July 6th). En passant, three observations: first, I hope the editor of the SN show some editorial even handedness and publish this letter so that the readers who do not read Guyana Chronicle can have the benefit and advantage of reading this reply to GHK Lall’s letter. Second, GHK Lall is expected to make an equally passionate exhortation to Candidate Ali to do an Al Gore type concession, in the event of Mr. Granger being declared the winner. Third, Ramkarran’s latest heresy “The torment could soon be over” – SN Sunday July 5th. But readers, reflect on this: the linchpin of Ramkarran’s argument is article 162, but there is no mention of the noun – “declaration”, or the verb “declare” in article 162.

Those words are to be found only in article 177. A first year law student could argue, convincingly, that the chair’s function/power as to declaration of the President, is found only in article 177, not in article 162. So, is the learned Senior Counsel inviting the Chair to plunge this country into a constitutional crisis by making an impermissible declaration under article 162? Should the Chair, yield to Ramkarran’s heresy and disregard and disapply the plain words of act 177 (2) (b) and make a declaration otherwise than “…… in accordance with the advice of the Chief Election Officer…….” then we are back in the COA for an interpretation of those words (article 177 (6) ouster begins with the plain words of limitation “subject to the provisions of paragraph (4) )]; and pending such interpretation, just as the CCJ did in the Ali/Jagdeo application, the COA would have to grant a STAY of any swearing in of Ali, while it renders its interpretation and finding of the plain and obvious intention of the draftsman/Parliament in the use of such plain and unambiguous words to record the formula on which, and only on which, the Chair’s declaration must happen.

I end with this: article 1 of our Constitution (entrenched by the framers at the deepest level and so it is of the highest constitutional signification and value) says that we are a democratic state. In a democratic State, there should be no President elected on the basis of fraudulent votes; only valid votes. And so, President Granger, as a historian, must know, that history will not absolve him, if as the true winner of the GREs 2020 by valid votes, he were to concede to the false, so called, winner on fraudulent, invalid votes. That, GHK Lall, stripped of all your self righteous rhetoric, is the real, historic, choices.
Regards
Maxwell E. Edward