There has to be a completely new constitution-Tarron Khemraj.

Source

September 26,2017

Dear Editor,

Please allow me to respond to Mr Lincoln Lewis’ letter in SN , Sepember 24 in which he argues the presenters at the recent constitutional symposium at University of Guyana, Tain, should first understand the 1980 Burnham Constitution before trying to critique it or ask for its reform. He cited Article 160 when responding to Mr Terrence Campbell of Reform, Inspire, Sustain and Educate (RISE). Mr Campbell had indicated some clear weaknesses of the electoral system.

I don’t believe Guyana needs mere constitutional reform. Instead, I believe there has to be a completely new Constitution. This is not because the document does not provide the rights of individuals as it relates to ethnicity, religion or gender. The Constitution is quite clear on these rights.

The problem, however, is these individual rights are trumped by group interests because the Constitution presents loopholes for party-based political (or oligarchic) capture of the state, jobs and resource rights. For example, Article 160 is deficient in one important aspect: the primacy of the party list system and the power it presents to the presidential candidate in selecting like-minded people on the list and therefore the members of parliament. I have raised this point on numerous occasions in my Development Watch columns and in my peer-reviewed academic works. Therefore, I will not repeat these arguments here.

There is no perfect constitution or political system. The degree of perfection of these should be viewed on a spectrum. However, it is crucial for Guyanese to create systems that minimize the opportunities for group interests to undermine individual rights as was done under the party paramountcy of the PNC and elected oligarchy of the PPP. This 1980 Burnham Constitution fails in this regard. It delivers too much power to the president and presents enough loopholes for the winning political party to dominate economic and social life.

Through pre-election alliance, which the constitution promotes, it allows enough ambiguity for the use of ethnic signalling that accuses independent politicians of selling out their respective kith and kin. Both the PPP and PNC have done it in 2011 and 2015. It was more obvious and centralized in the PPP’s actions at Babu Jaan. The PNC’s ethnic mobilizations were more subtle and decentralized. The requirement of pre-election alliance was deliberately inserted to entrench the PPP-PNC ethnic political duopoly by allowing them to accuse others of selling out.

Editor, as a member of the diaspora, I am not trying to impose my views on Guyanese. I know that newspaper columnists (except Stabroek News), politicians, and the woman/man in the street despise us. However, if I am allowed to make a suggestion, I would encourage RISE and others not to treat constitutional reform as a legalistic exercise in tinkering around the edges. The lawyers should only get involved in drafting after the problem solvers – the farmers, engineers, economists, scientists, mathematicians, accountants, teachers, police officers, soldiers, medical professionals, and in general the quantitatively inclined – have outlined a clear set of core principles that should involve minimizing the power of group interests, rooted in the duopolistic party structure, over individual rights.

The tinkered 1980 Burnham Constitution can be case study of the fallacy of composition, in which the sum of the individual rights provided under the Constitution do not equal the social or aggregate rights. This has had devastating impact on Guyana’s economic development since 1970.

Sorry if anyone thinks I am lecturing them. I am not.

Yours faithfully,

Tarron Khemraj

Original Post
Mitwah posted:
yuji22 posted:

Ha ha ! Tk and his Jackass sidekick Gerhard were hugging up Granger and now they have been kicked to the curb.  They are now on the sidelines. Looks good on them. A bunch of clowns.

You have no credibility. Gwan da side. 

Mits...ya getting redundant buddy 

Was this banna, Kemraj, with the AFC at one time?

Drugb posted:

Lard have mercy, even the lowly slop can boys got better rewarded than these two dufus, gerhard and tk. 

Yes, their financial compensation makes fun of the clowns TK and Gerhard who are now in the PNC trash bin. Used and abused.

Gilbakka posted:

A wide cross-section of the society would agree with TK on the need to overhaul the Constitution. Unfortunately, neither the ruling coalition nor the opposition PPP seems interested in such a transforming action.

We should hold GNI's Mitwah responsible because he was selling AFC's snake oil about constitutional reform prior to the election and has now gone silent since liars Moses and Ramjattan have have now changed their tunes.

Who is GNI's liar again ? Paging Mitwah.

Calling a spade a spade.

Constitutional reform is necessary but the current political parties have no appetite for that, let us first look at having a GECOM head and then we can talk reform.

Until then, the democracy has an even bigger threat right now with Granger refusal to accept a chairman in anticipation of his plan to rig.

TK and others do not have the Bal** to call out Granger and his refusal to elect a GECOM head. This chap has lost all credibility. He should stick with his daytime job.

Loud Mouth Gerhard is another crook.

yuji22 posted:
Drugb posted:

Lard have mercy, even the lowly slop can boys got better rewarded than these two dufus, gerhard and tk. 

Yes, their financial compensation makes fun of the clowns TK and Gerhard who are now in the PNC trash bin. Used and abused.

Who is Gerhard?

VishMahabir posted:
yuji22 posted:
Drugb posted:

Lard have mercy, even the lowly slop can boys got better rewarded than these two dufus, gerhard and tk. 

Yes, their financial compensation makes fun of the clowns TK and Gerhard who are now in the PNC trash bin. Used and abused.

Who is Gerhard?

Wood Computa expert.

Gilbakka posted:

A wide cross-section of the society would agree with TK on the need to overhaul the Constitution. Unfortunately, neither the ruling coalition nor the opposition PPP seems interested in such a transforming action.

Gil, I agree with you that a wide cross section of the population sees the need to change the constitution. 

I think that changing the constitution will not solve the problems we have. We need to change who we elect to represent us, how we get them to adhere to the constitution and laws of Guyana, of believing in win -win approach to solving national problems instead of win -lose  approach, how we change the implicit outlook by many politicians that political competition for government is all about having access to the economic spoils of power instead of doing service for the nation and its people. Until we do these, the constitution is just a piece of paper. Recent events - the selection of GEOCOM chairman, the intrusion on the power of the various independent commissions, Basil Williams fiasco with the judge among others point to the fact that changing the constitution is not the' be all, end all', that the constitution can be subverted.

Zed posted:
Gilbakka posted:

A wide cross-section of the society would agree with TK on the need to overhaul the Constitution. Unfortunately, neither the ruling coalition nor the opposition PPP seems interested in such a transforming action.

Gil, I agree with you that a wide cross section of the population sees the need to change the constitution. 

I think that changing the constitution will not solve the problems we have. We need to change who we elect to represent us, how we get them to adhere to the constitution and laws of Guyana, of believing in win -win approach to solving national problems instead of win -lose  approach, how we change the implicit outlook by many politicians that political competition for government is all about having access to the economic spoils of power instead of doing service for the nation and its people. Until we do these, the constitution is just a piece of paper. Recent events - the selection of GEOCOM chairman, the intrusion on the power of the various independent commissions, Basil Williams fiasco with the judge among others point to the fact that changing the constitution is not the' be all, end all', that the constitution can be subverted.

First step Electoral Reforms,

the list system have to go.

Here me bai Anil. He a wan good bai. Me like am. He can be wan brainbox sometime. 

ANIL

PPP/C delivered constitution reform

Dear Editor,

Last week, the Stabroek news (2018.02.24) published a letter by Vishnu Bisram under the caption “Jagan and the PPP broke their promise to revoke the Burnham Constitution”. This letter provides me with the opportunity to address a falsehood that has been peddled with alarming frequency by a misguided few.

Bisram wrote, “Jagan made a commitment in 1992 before the first democratic election was held that should he win the Presidency, his first act would be to replace the constitution. Jagan and the PPP broke their promise. …Nandlall and his colleagues, including Bharrat Jagdeo and Frank Anthony, are on record as supporting the Burnham constitution.”

I am indeed, disappointed that a person of Bisram’s political acumen and academic stature would make such careless statements. Neither Dr. Cheddi Jagan,  nor the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) promised to “revoke” the 1980 “Burnham Constitution”. Neither was there a promise to do so as a “first act” of Government. Anyone familiar with constitutional workings would know that either of those promises would have been reckless to make because they are both, practically and politically, nearly impossible to deliver. Revoking a Constitution is a highly technical, financially exorbitant and time-consuming process and it would have been politically suicidal for the PPP to attempt any such thing as its first act of Government after the 1992 elections, having regard to the charged political environment pervading at the time. More on this will have to be the subject of an article set aside for that purpose.

Prior to the 1992 elections, what Dr. Jagan and the PPP promised was “constitutional reform” with emphasis on the reduction of the heavy concentration of power in the Executive, generally and the President, specifically. As soon as it became reasonably possible, the PPP commenced a course of action designed to deliver on this promise. Thus, in 1994, a Constitutional Reform Committee of the National Assembly was established, headed by then Attorney General, Mr. Bernard DeSantos SC. Unfortunately, before this Committee could have completed its work, the life of that Parliament came to an end. Then came the 1997 elections.  The PPP’s victory at the polls brought about widespread protests, burning, looting and street violence instigated by the PNC. An intervention by Caricom produced the Herd-manston Accord which embraced constitutional reform.

In consequence, by an Act of Parliament, piloted by the PPP/C Government in 1999, a broad-based Constitutional Reform Commission was legally established. This Commission comprised the political parties, the religious organisations, the private sector, the labour movement, ethnic based organisations, women’s organisations, Amerindian organisations, farmer’s organisations and important civil society stakeholder organisations such as the Guyana Bar Association. Signifi-cantly, this Commission was endowed with an unfettered statutory mandate to review the Constitution in its entirety. In the discharge of this mandate, it was empowered to consult “…within the widest possible geographical area, with as many persons, groups, communities, organisations and institutions as possible including, but not restricted to, religious and cultural organisations, political parties, youth organisations, high school and university students, women’s organisations, private sector organisations, professional bodies and the media.” Ralph Ramkarran S.C. chaired this Commission and Haslyn Parris was its secretary.

I pause here to point out that the PPP did not seek to monopolize nor dominate this initiative, but rather, magnanimously, delegated it to a multiple-partisan body, vested with an untrammelled mandate to consult with all and sundry across the length and breadth of Guyana with a view of reviewing the Constitution in its entirety.

This Commission worked for over two years and produced over 200 recommendations, which were culled, refined and crystallised into over 180 amendments that were all incorporated into the 1980 Constitution.

A distillation of these recommendations and consequential amendments can be summarized thus: there was formidable diminution of executive powers, including the powers and immunities of the President; there was a discernible devolution of most of these powers to the Legislature, the Political Opposition and other agencies of State, including, the Local Democratic Organs; there was expansion of the powers of Parliament and the establishment of a series of checks and balances to increase scrutiny of the executive’s exercise of power and an appreciable augmentation of civil liberties and human rights.

It would be impossible for me to elaborate on or even list the reforms made. Nevertheless, I will highlight only a few.

Presidential Powers

In terms of the Executive President, the controversial immunities with which the President was endowed for acts committed after he demitted office, were removed and what now exists is a compendium of immunities, which most Heads of State throughout the Commonwealth enjoy. The power which a President enjoyed to dissolve a Parliament, moving to remove him from office was excised and the number of votes required to move a Motion of that type in the National Assembly was reduced. The powers which the President had to unilaterally appoint a Chancellor of the Judiciary, a Chief Justice and a Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) are now shared with the Leader of the Opposition. The power that the President hitherto enjoyed to unilaterally appoint members of all the Service Commissions is now shared with the National Assembly and the Leader of the Opposition. The President is now mandated to act upon the recommendations of the Service Commissions. A discretionary power, which existed before has been removed. A two-term limit has been imposed on the Presidency. In most of the important constitutional appointments where the President enjoys the power of appointment, he is mandated to engage in “meaningful consultation” with the Leader of the Opposition and “meaningful consultation” is now defined by the Constitution, itself.

In terms of Parliament, an Opposition, now for the first time, can remove a Government by virtue of a no confidence Motion. Standing Committees in the Parliament have been constitutionalized. The National Assembly now recommends persons to be appointed on the various Service Commissions and on the Rights Commissions established by these constitutional amendments. The fiscal autonomy and independence of a number of institutions of the state, including the Judiciary, the Auditor General Office and a host of other State “watchdog” agencies have been constitutionalized. An independent Elections Commission, differently constituted, has been established. A modified electoral system was promulgated with greater geographic representation.

Democratic Polity

In terms of individual rights, the fundamental rights and freedoms section of the Constitution was expanded and new rights introduced. For example: the right to work, the right to pension and gratuity, equality for women, indigenous peoples rights, the right to establish private schools etc., have all been made fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. All international treaties dealing with human rights to which Guyana is a signatory, were to some extent incorporated and made part of our Constitution and those charged with the responsibilities of interpreting the human rights embraced by the Constitution, are mandated to take into account the provisions of these international treaties. None of these were in the 1980 Constitution. The Rights Commission for example: the Indigenous Peoples Commission, the Woman and Gender Equality Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Rights of the Child Commission, were all established under these amendments. So was the Public Procurement Commission.

The above is by no means exhaustive but it provides a fleeting insight into some of the changes, which were made to the 1980 Constitution. These changes, cumulatively, have immeasurably, liberalised the democratic polity, enhanced the juridical structure and augmented the human rights content of the Constitution rendering it radically different from the 1980 document. Therefore those who continue to propagate the view that the PPP did not change the 1980 Constitution and that the 1980 Constitution is alive, are not speaking from a position of knowledge, but are parroting the views of the uninitiated.

Should there be more changes? Of course! Constitutional reform, like life and society, is an ongoing and evolutionary process. As an organic document, a Constitution must always remain fluid and dynamic, ready to adapt to the vicissitudes and exigencies of the evolving society in which it operates.

Yours faithfully,

Anil Nandlall

 

Copyright © 2017 Stabroek News. All rights reserved.

VishMahabir posted:
yuji22 posted:
Drugb posted:

Lard have mercy, even the lowly slop can boys got better rewarded than these two dufus, gerhard and tk. 

Yes, their financial compensation makes fun of the clowns TK and Gerhard who are now in the PNC trash bin. Used and abused.

Who is Gerhard?

He getaway from the PNC and gaan to live in Germany.

Labba posted:

Here me bai Anil. He a wan good bai. Me like am. He can be wan brainbox sometime. 

ANIL

PPP/C delivered constitution reform

Dear Editor,

Last week, the Stabroek news (2018.02.24) published a letter by Vishnu Bisram under the caption “Jagan and the PPP broke their promise to revoke the Burnham Constitution”. This letter provides me with the opportunity to address a falsehood that has been peddled with alarming frequency by a misguided few.

Bisram wrote, “Jagan made a commitment in 1992 before the first democratic election was held that should he win the Presidency, his first act would be to replace the constitution. Jagan and the PPP broke their promise. …Nandlall and his colleagues, including Bharrat Jagdeo and Frank Anthony, are on record as supporting the Burnham constitution.”

I am indeed, disappointed that a person of Bisram’s political acumen and academic stature would make such careless statements. Neither Dr. Cheddi Jagan,  nor the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) promised to “revoke” the 1980 “Burnham Constitution”. Neither was there a promise to do so as a “first act” of Government. Anyone familiar with constitutional workings would know that either of those promises would have been reckless to make because they are both, practically and politically, nearly impossible to deliver. Revoking a Constitution is a highly technical, financially exorbitant and time-consuming process and it would have been politically suicidal for the PPP to attempt any such thing as its first act of Government after the 1992 elections, having regard to the charged political environment pervading at the time. More on this will have to be the subject of an article set aside for that purpose.

Prior to the 1992 elections, what Dr. Jagan and the PPP promised was “constitutional reform” with emphasis on the reduction of the heavy concentration of power in the Executive, generally and the President, specifically. As soon as it became reasonably possible, the PPP commenced a course of action designed to deliver on this promise. Thus, in 1994, a Constitutional Reform Committee of the National Assembly was established, headed by then Attorney General, Mr. Bernard DeSantos SC. Unfortunately, before this Committee could have completed its work, the life of that Parliament came to an end. Then came the 1997 elections.  The PPP’s victory at the polls brought about widespread protests, burning, looting and street violence instigated by the PNC. An intervention by Caricom produced the Herd-manston Accord which embraced constitutional reform.

In consequence, by an Act of Parliament, piloted by the PPP/C Government in 1999, a broad-based Constitutional Reform Commission was legally established. This Commission comprised the political parties, the religious organisations, the private sector, the labour movement, ethnic based organisations, women’s organisations, Amerindian organisations, farmer’s organisations and important civil society stakeholder organisations such as the Guyana Bar Association. Signifi-cantly, this Commission was endowed with an unfettered statutory mandate to review the Constitution in its entirety. In the discharge of this mandate, it was empowered to consult “…within the widest possible geographical area, with as many persons, groups, communities, organisations and institutions as possible including, but not restricted to, religious and cultural organisations, political parties, youth organisations, high school and university students, women’s organisations, private sector organisations, professional bodies and the media.” Ralph Ramkarran S.C. chaired this Commission and Haslyn Parris was its secretary.

I pause here to point out that the PPP did not seek to monopolize nor dominate this initiative, but rather, magnanimously, delegated it to a multiple-partisan body, vested with an untrammelled mandate to consult with all and sundry across the length and breadth of Guyana with a view of reviewing the Constitution in its entirety.

This Commission worked for over two years and produced over 200 recommendations, which were culled, refined and crystallised into over 180 amendments that were all incorporated into the 1980 Constitution.

A distillation of these recommendations and consequential amendments can be summarized thus: there was formidable diminution of executive powers, including the powers and immunities of the President; there was a discernible devolution of most of these powers to the Legislature, the Political Opposition and other agencies of State, including, the Local Democratic Organs; there was expansion of the powers of Parliament and the establishment of a series of checks and balances to increase scrutiny of the executive’s exercise of power and an appreciable augmentation of civil liberties and human rights.

It would be impossible for me to elaborate on or even list the reforms made. Nevertheless, I will highlight only a few.

Presidential Powers

In terms of the Executive President, the controversial immunities with which the President was endowed for acts committed after he demitted office, were removed and what now exists is a compendium of immunities, which most Heads of State throughout the Commonwealth enjoy. The power which a President enjoyed to dissolve a Parliament, moving to remove him from office was excised and the number of votes required to move a Motion of that type in the National Assembly was reduced. The powers which the President had to unilaterally appoint a Chancellor of the Judiciary, a Chief Justice and a Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) are now shared with the Leader of the Opposition. The power that the President hitherto enjoyed to unilaterally appoint members of all the Service Commissions is now shared with the National Assembly and the Leader of the Opposition. The President is now mandated to act upon the recommendations of the Service Commissions. A discretionary power, which existed before has been removed. A two-term limit has been imposed on the Presidency. In most of the important constitutional appointments where the President enjoys the power of appointment, he is mandated to engage in “meaningful consultation” with the Leader of the Opposition and “meaningful consultation” is now defined by the Constitution, itself.

In terms of Parliament, an Opposition, now for the first time, can remove a Government by virtue of a no confidence Motion. Standing Committees in the Parliament have been constitutionalized. The National Assembly now recommends persons to be appointed on the various Service Commissions and on the Rights Commissions established by these constitutional amendments. The fiscal autonomy and independence of a number of institutions of the state, including the Judiciary, the Auditor General Office and a host of other State “watchdog” agencies have been constitutionalized. An independent Elections Commission, differently constituted, has been established. A modified electoral system was promulgated with greater geographic representation.

Democratic Polity

In terms of individual rights, the fundamental rights and freedoms section of the Constitution was expanded and new rights introduced. For example: the right to work, the right to pension and gratuity, equality for women, indigenous peoples rights, the right to establish private schools etc., have all been made fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. All international treaties dealing with human rights to which Guyana is a signatory, were to some extent incorporated and made part of our Constitution and those charged with the responsibilities of interpreting the human rights embraced by the Constitution, are mandated to take into account the provisions of these international treaties. None of these were in the 1980 Constitution. The Rights Commission for example: the Indigenous Peoples Commission, the Woman and Gender Equality Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Rights of the Child Commission, were all established under these amendments. So was the Public Procurement Commission.

The above is by no means exhaustive but it provides a fleeting insight into some of the changes, which were made to the 1980 Constitution. These changes, cumulatively, have immeasurably, liberalised the democratic polity, enhanced the juridical structure and augmented the human rights content of the Constitution rendering it radically different from the 1980 document. Therefore those who continue to propagate the view that the PPP did not change the 1980 Constitution and that the 1980 Constitution is alive, are not speaking from a position of knowledge, but are parroting the views of the uninitiated.

Should there be more changes? Of course! Constitutional reform, like life and society, is an ongoing and evolutionary process. As an organic document, a Constitution must always remain fluid and dynamic, ready to adapt to the vicissitudes and exigencies of the evolving society in which it operates.

Yours faithfully,

Anil Nandlall

 

Copyright © 2017 Stabroek News. All rights reserved.

Masterpiece!

Bhai Labba,

I read the letter and was going to post,you beat me to it.

Anil said

"This Commission worked for over two years and produced over 200 recommendations, which were culled, refined and crystallised into over 180 amendments that were all incorporated into the 1980 Constitution.

"It would be impossible for me to elaborate on or even list the reforms made. "


 

What a cop out,who is he fooling ?

Django posted:

Bhai Labba,

I read the letter and was going to post,you beat me to it.

Anil,said 200 recommendations and 180 amendments and "It would be impossible for me to elaborate on or even list the reforms made. "

What a cop out,who is he fooling ?

Anil is telling the truth.  Who are you fooling?

Bibi Haniffa posted:
Django posted:

Bhai Labba,

I read the letter and was going to post,you beat me to it.

Anil,said 200 recommendations and 180 amendments and "It would be impossible for me to elaborate on or even list the reforms made. "

What a cop out,who is he fooling ?

Anil is telling the truth.  Who are you fooling?

I am aware of truth,

you can believe in him,also you can believe what your hero said recently,

"Jagdeo said PPP will win by a difference of 50,000 votes come 2020 elections"

Django posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:
Django posted:

Bhai Labba,

I read the letter and was going to post,you beat me to it.

Anil,said 200 recommendations and 180 amendments and "It would be impossible for me to elaborate on or even list the reforms made. "

What a cop out,who is he fooling ?

Anil is telling the truth.  Who are you fooling?

I am aware of truth,

you can believe in him,also you can believe what your hero said recently,

"Jagdeo said PPP will win by a difference of 50,000 votes come 2020 elections"

And what makes you believe PPP would not win a free and fair election by 50,000 votes in 2020 . Like you start wetting you pants . You Beta stock up on pampers ... this is the truth 

Dave posted:
 

And what makes you believe PPP would not win a free and fair election by 50,000 votes in 2020 . Like you start wetting you pants . You Beta stock up on pampers ... this is the truth 

Check this thread there is a link,do the math.

Are you that gullible ? oh i forget when it isn't accomplished,the old record "rigging" will be spinning.I have overlooked the numbers,no way PPP can get a difference of positive 50,000 votes.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Ayoo hear that pot solt write bout abie Anil, abie Shaha/burnham constitution. Since when he a law man. He a kanta economis.

Mr TK

Anil, you know the Herdmanston Accord did not address that big elephant in the room? How do you deal with the result of pro-ethnic strategic voting? Is it morally justified for a party to run the affairs of a country when that party derives its core support from mainly one ethnicity? There are some serious problems with this tinkered 1980 Burnham Constitution. I have always used the word tinkered because the changes inspired by the Herdmanston Accord (HA) did not address the fundamental problem of strategic pro-ethnic voting by mainly East Indians and Afro-Guyanese. The HA came about because of a shake down of the PPP through violence and destabilization, as you pointed out, not so much because Dr Jagan wanted fundamental changes to the constitution. What are some of the fundamentals? The dominance of the list system, pre-election alliance instead of post-election alliance, the less than 51% needed for winning Presidency such as in 2011, the list system still dominates the geographic representation in Parliament, meaning the President determines who becomes the geographic MPs. There is still too much powers in the President. However, I take your point that some progress was made here. There are others as I have outlined in several columns and letters over the years, so I will not repeat them. Take for example the contract signed by ExxonMobil, a constitution promoting cohesion would make sure all the parties had a say in negotiating the contract. I am sure you would have received better terms than 2% royalty, 50/50 profit share no matter the market price and US$18 mill bonus.

Django posted:
Dave posted:
 

And what makes you believe PPP would not win a free and fair election by 50,000 votes in 2020 . Like you start wetting you pants . You Beta stock up on pampers ... this is the truth 

Check this thread there is a link,do the math.

Are you that gullible ? oh i forget when it isn't accomplished,the old record "rigging" will be spinning.I have overlooked the numbers,no way PPP can get a difference of positive 50,000 votes.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Keep swaying your  foot and think !!! the deflectors to AFC in 2015 coming back home to PPP to roast the chicken. 

Mitwah posted:
Dave posted:

And what makes you believe PPP would not win a free and fair election by 50,000 votes in 2020 . 

Dave, how did you come up with 50,000 votes for the win in 2020?

We Dr of Politics say so.. Dr BJ.

Every time you buddy Django hear his name he wee wee his pants 😀.

Dave posted:
Django posted:
Dave posted:
 

And what makes you believe PPP would not win a free and fair election by 50,000 votes in 2020 . Like you start wetting you pants . You Beta stock up on pampers ... this is the truth 

Check this thread there is a link,do the math.

Are you that gullible ? oh i forget when it isn't accomplished,the old record "rigging" will be spinning.I have overlooked the numbers,no way PPP can get a difference of positive 50,000 votes.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Keep swaying your  foot and think !!! the deflectors to AFC in 2015 coming back home to PPP to roast the chicken. 

I will say again,do the math,

returning defectors won't cut the mustard.

Dave posted:
Mitwah posted:
Dave posted:

And what makes you believe PPP would not win a free and fair election by 50,000 votes in 2020 . 

Dave, how did you come up with 50,000 votes for the win in 2020?

We Dr of Politics say so.. Dr BJ.

Every time you buddy Django hear his name he wee wee his pants 😀.

Why should piss my pants ?

The man is delusional and retarded.

Django posted:
Dave posted:
Django posted:
Dave posted:
 

And what makes you believe PPP would not win a free and fair election by 50,000 votes in 2020 . Like you start wetting you pants . You Beta stock up on pampers ... this is the truth 

Check this thread there is a link,do the math.

Are you that gullible ? oh i forget when it isn't accomplished,the old record "rigging" will be spinning.I have overlooked the numbers,no way PPP can get a difference of positive 50,000 votes.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Keep swaying your  foot and think !!! the deflectors to AFC in 2015 coming back home to PPP to roast the chicken. 

I will say again,do the math,

returning defectors won't cut the mustard.

What you trying to say ... them ( PNC) importing from Hati and resurrecting the death so the numbers  impossible   ... I see your point . 

Dave posted:

What you trying to say ... them ( PNC) importing from Hati and resurrecting the death so the numbers  impossible   ... I see your point . 

Leh whe take a break ,closer to 2020 Elections we will continue the conversation.

Django posted:
Dave posted:
Mitwah posted:
Dave posted:

And what makes you believe PPP would not win a free and fair election by 50,000 votes in 2020 . 

Dave, how did you come up with 50,000 votes for the win in 2020?

We Dr of Politics say so.. Dr BJ.

Every time you buddy Django hear his name he wee wee his pants 😀.

Why should piss my pants ?

The man is delusional and retarded.

Take it easzzzzzeeeee . Same thing I saying . I man getting of this topic .. don’t want to be responsible for you popping a blood vessel . 

BTW make sure you put all them screws  in them customer instrument 

long live DR BJ 😎

Labba posted:

Bhai me tink Jagdoe will win de sleckshun. Dem bais head go swell so much dat dem going to be 20 time arrogant. Den de destabilise go start and dem simple coolie people go tek de licks foh dem uppity one dem. Ayoo watch and see. 

Oh Lord!! mo pressure on Djanjo .

Django posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:
Django posted:

Bhai Labba,

I read the letter and was going to post,you beat me to it.

Anil,said 200 recommendations and 180 amendments and "It would be impossible for me to elaborate on or even list the reforms made. "

What a cop out,who is he fooling ?

Anil is telling the truth.  Who are you fooling?

I am aware of truth,

you can believe in him,also you can believe what your hero said recently,

"Jagdeo said PPP will win by a difference of 50,000 votes come 2020 elections"

I think he might be wrong here.  The win would be more like 15,000.  Def not 50,000.

Bibi Haniffa posted:
Django posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:
Django posted:

Bhai Labba,

I read the letter and was going to post,you beat me to it.

Anil,said 200 recommendations and 180 amendments and "It would be impossible for me to elaborate on or even list the reforms made. "

What a cop out,who is he fooling ?

Anil is telling the truth.  Who are you fooling?

I am aware of truth,

you can believe in him,also you can believe what your hero said recently,

"Jagdeo said PPP will win by a difference of 50,000 votes come 2020 elections"

I think he might be wrong here.  The win would be more like 15,000.  Def not 50,000.

That's funny. LOL. 

IGGI say about abie Shahab/Burnham law

 

This is a losing argument. The PPP used concrete and plaster to patch up the gaping holes in this structure but it remains ugly and unusable as an institutional umbrella under which our people can shelter from the cruel winds of avaricious government...like the PPP. We still maintain our long, low level internecine tribal war and our nation is still an ethnic prize to be fought over. Some of the decorations of the office of the president may have been removed but these were flourishes and ornamentation to a bloated, dictatorial seat of government. The President is selected by a party cabal and elections merely ratify his status as an elected dictator. He tacitly understands he will remain there only based on how well he can maintain an ethnic grievance culture. Every other office of import exist at his behest and the checks to his authority are weak and useless as a congenitally deformed limb.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×
×