I HAVE read with grave disappointment, and yet amusement, the letter penned by the very respectable Mr Christopher Ram entitled ‘Neither the President nor the Attorney General is the authority for the interpretation of the constitution; that is the function of the courts’ (Stabroek

News, October 03).
Mr Ram was responding to a letter written by the Attorney General (Stabroek News September 30) which I have read and with which I completely agree.
Mr Ram’s contention is that the Attorney General is of the opinion that the President and the Attorney General have the authority to interpret the Constitution. But the Attorney General said no such thing. The AG’s argument is that the President, the Attorney General and indeed every person has the authority to interpret the law and the Constitution but that the Court is the final arbiter.
He stated that in plain language in the section of his letter entitled ‘Judiciary role remains intact’.
If the President assents to a Bill that in his opinion is good and constitutional, the Court is the final arbiter and only the Court can decide whether in fact the Bill, which becomes an Act of Parliament, is valid.
Mr Ram himself sites several articles of the Constitution and tries to explain what they mean. Is he not in fact interpreting the Constitution? From whence did he derive the authority? Is he not usurping the functions of the Court? I am shocked that such puerility can emanate from a trained legal mind such as Mr Ram’s.
Mr Ram next takes issue with the use of the adjective “untrammelled” in the Attorney General’s writings where he described the President’s power to withhold assent to Bills. Mr Ram contends that no power is “untrammeled”.  Clearly, Mr Ram again misunderstands the context in which the Attorney General makes use of that word. The AG was responding to issues raised by Bryn Pollard that the President has no power to reject a Bill on the ground of “unconstitutionality”.  I understand the Attorney General to be saying that the President has “untrammeled” power to reject a Bill on the ground of unconstitutionality as well as a number of other reasons.  In fact, to make his point, the Attorney General quotes Basu who examines a similar power enjoyed by the US President.
But rather than be guided by the learning of the authors quoted by the Attorney General, Mr Ram expressly disregards them and promises to focus only on Guyanese law, yet seeks to also quote other authors of his own choice.
It appears that Mr Ram has not read the letter, or did not grasp its contents. If he did, then it must be concluded that Mr Ram’s rambling is yet another crack at remaining or indeed becoming relevant in legal and political factions.
His complete disregard for all the references that the Attorney General makes to other similar Constitutions and learned authors who have tread the terrain of this issue for years further solidifies this conclusion.