The Coil: Audacious Citizenry

By Vidya Kissoon
Mr Mohammed Ali , who once worked as a security guard, was audacious according to the charges against him. He reportedly put on a tie and rode down to Queens College. He was able to convince a few people that he was a detective and then proceeded to steal cell phones. He had previously managed to con several people. He managed to pretend to be an employee of the Guyana Post Office Corporation during his rampage before he was caught.  According to the media reports, Mr Ali had served time in jail and the skills he learned there did not seem as useful to him as being able to get cell phones from people.
Mr Damion Bailey was audacious. According to news reports, he was a computer programmer at the Ministry of Home Affairs and and a few months after his lawyer said he was not stupidee when he claimed to act on behalf of Minister  of Home Affairs Clement Rohee, he tried to claim to act on behalf of  Minister Irfaan Alli.  He was charged after he reportedly collected phones before he was caught He was audacious.. imagination. Why these two Ministers?  Why not other Ministers?  Did he think they were too busy and would not find  out? Why not the Opposition Leader?
Mr Balgobind was audacious. Like Mr Ali, he reportedly decided to pose as a detective.  He posed as one ‘Sergeant Singh’ and managed to collect money from people. People who felt it was okay to pay police directly rather than at the court. Sergeant Singh was bold, daring – even thinking that he could fool the police into thinking that he was a police. Sergeant Singh was not only impersonating police, he was impersonating police who took money from drivers for not wearing seat belts. There is a certain brave creative desperation here which pushes the boundaries of imagination. Would Mr Balgobind have posed as any other constitutionally appointed officer if he believed he could get as much money as posing as a Sergeant collecting money from  the public?
How did Messrs Ali, Bailey and Balgobind think they would get away with it? Were they inspired by others who have got away with it?
Mr Richardson is audacious. According to media reports, he wants to be able to elect President Jagdeo formally again and he has gone to court to challenge the Constitutional change.  There are different reports of what is wanted but  it seems that Mr Richardson believes that the 2001 changes (and all the others?) should have been made by referendum. This is bold. Very few lawyers take on cases they think they will lose. So there are four lawyers who will go to court with this. The fascinating thing is whether, even if President Jagdeo does not want to be President , a judgement in favour will mean that in effect, all the amendments to the constitution are unconstitutional and that Mr Richardson and others could get their heart’s desire to use the Burnham constitution created after the 1980 referendum which might have been dodgy to get President Jagdeo nominated again even if he is not interested in being President.
What happens then if Mr Richardson gets justice and his lawyers make history and the current Constitution then is a con ? Would it mean that all the judicial officers cannot exist because their appointments would be invalid? Would it then mean that Messrs Ali , Bailey and Balgobind would have to be freed by the same realisation which would make President Jagdeo eligible to be President even if he does not want to be President?,  Would it mean that President Jagdeo was never President after 2001 and President Ramotar was never President and Guyana does not really exist?