July 17, 2014

Dear Sir,

Regarding the escalating state of affairs in the country.

I think the job lay between the speaker of the House and the role of Governor ... the speaker needed to have appointed a joint committee of the House to flush out details of a terms of reference and means of compensation and report back to the governor, otherwise the governor’s position, whether wise or unwise, would be a political position outweighing the role of parliament.

This was a money bill which required the consent of the Minister of Finance the gov failed.

So technically they could be recalled for failing on a money bill ... the governor should not have the role of deciding for the country what its fiduciary undertakings should or should not be unless it was a matter of internal and external security which involves Britain, or a human rights issue which again affects the role of Britain under the European Convention.

A matter which is of a political nature for the country which is about the peoples business, should not be witheld by the governor because it negates parliament.

There was no referenda or legitimate poll to determine the disposition of the public and therefore the Governor has no bases to determine what the public consider as there good.

Other than a referendum the parliament is the next best indicator of the public will and to avoid that reality is to rule.

Its just a principle and one that could change the fundamental operating module for the country whether we like it or not.

KHALID WASI