Sarah's letter of May 27th in which she bluntly refused to put on the agenda the majority in the council of ministers request to dissolve Parliament places the Governor in an awkward position. Her refusal is an open rebellion against his explicit advice on this matter. We will recall that the governor in his letter of May 16th, gave three pieces of advice to the Prime Minister.
The first was that the right to dissolve Parliament was a constitutional and autonomous right of government. The second piece of advice was that she should give space to the demand of five ministers in the council of ministers that government be dissolved. But the most crucial was the third. Not allowing the vote on dissolving Parliament would not do justice to our constitutional process.
In a breath taking display of hubris and overreach, The Prime Minister issued her letter to the Council of Ministers informing them that she had decided that there would be no meeting to discuss the dissolving of Parliament. This has placed the governor before an enormous decision. He cannot ignore the PM's intransigence and uphold the constitution at the same time. He must choose and we know how desperately he has tried to avoid being backed into a corner. But the PM 's decision, a fool hardy one for sure, has placed him and the young country before a momentous choice. At the same time it is an easy choice. No one, especially not the Prime Minister can violate our constitution. Government's right to dissolve Parliament is one such right guaranteed by our Constitution. The governor must now choose between article 59 of the constitution and Sarah.
The governor must decide quickly to restore constitutional order and discipline. Rarely does a governor get the opportunity to actively determine the direction of major issues. After all, his role is largely ceremonial, as Van Rijn described it, the right to heard, to advise and to encourage. But in this case he wields some important powers. For example he appoints the formateur. One of the first things he can therefore do is recall his appointment of the PM as formateur until article 59 is complied with. The majority in the council of ministers have made it abundantly clear that they wish to exercise this right. Until this right has been exercised the governor is fully within his right, to refuse to appoint a formateur or proceed with any steps towards the formation of a new government. He is aided in his decision by article 20 of the Rules of Order of the Council of Ministers which state that decisions are made by the majority.
The governor must choose between anarchy and the rule of law. He cannot proceed with the formation of a government in violation of the constitution. Such a government would be unconstitutional. Any laws it passes would be therefore unconstitutional as well as invalid. Citizens may then ignore such laws because the government that passed them does not have the moral nor constitutional authority to do so. This is the quickest way to chaos and higher supervision. And all because the PM desperately wants to cling to her position, even when the constitution tells her she must go.
The PM has drawn a line in the sand and challenged the governor to cross it.
Name withheld upon author's request.
