Outgoing Indian High Commissioner to Guyana, Venkatakchalam Mahalingam, is urging the country’s political leaders to heed the advice of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and discuss the way forward for Guyana.
“I’m sure the consequential orders are mostly going to be a form of direction for both the political parties. But the hint given is that they should sit together and they should come out with a consensus and decide what the way forward is.
“So, therefore, we would like both parties to sit together, as advised by the Caribbean Court of Justice, and decide what is the best way forward for the democratic process to continue,” he told this publication during an interview Monday.
Contending that his country does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, the Indian diplomat emphasised, however, that they would like for the democratic process to take over and finally have this issue, which has been languishing for the past seven months, resolved.
“The Caribbean Court of Justice understands what has been going on in Guyana and they wanted to put both parties together and arrive at a consensus. I don’t know, if consensus is not arrived at by both parties, what would be the order of the Caribbean Court of Justice or what would be the direction in the end, but we need to wait to see… But I’m sure Guyana will definitely find a solution for its betterment,” Mahalingam said.
President Justice Adrian Saunders urged that President David Granger meet with Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo to come up with a consensus on the way forward and as such, postponed the date to issue consequential orders on the No-Confidence Motion cases to July 12, 2019.
CCJ President Justice Adrian Saunders urged the two sides to meet to find consensus before last Monday’s hearing for consequential orders.
However, President David Granger sent an invitation to Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo on Friday for them to meet after Monday’s hearing. During that hearing, Justice Saunders expressed disappointment that the two leaders were yet to meet.
In fact, he went on to note that the case puts the Court in an “awkward position” since it does not want to make political decisions, but at the same time, it has a remit to ensure that the rule of law is observed. (Vahnu Manikchand)
