EYEWITNESS: Divvying up …marital (coalition) property

0

Just when your Eyewitness thought the AFC and the PNC had sorted out their divorce amicably, because they had the foresight to craft a pre-nup agreement called the “Cummingsburg Accord”, there appears to be some serious discord popping up!! So, it looks like – as with most divorces – this one’s gonna be quite messy!!

Now, you should know that your Eyewitness’s interest in this matter isn’t purely voyeuristic – but then, no voyeurism is “pure”, is it??!! But seriously, folks, what’s playing out here has serious implications for coalition politics in our dear mudland!!

Cause coalition politics is the only way the PNC’s gonna be able to get back into power without trying that riggy-thingy that backfired the last time. The first coalition was all the way back in 1964, when – under the watchful eyes of the Yanks and Brits – the PNC of Burnham and the UF of D’Aguiar had joined in not-so-holy-matrimony!! After all, while it wasn’t a real shotgun wedding, there was so much COLD calculation involved by all sides – including the matchmakers – they didn’t need no shotgun!!

But for sure there was little love lost in that loveless marriage!! And sure enough, before the five-year term was up, Burnham had already sweet-talked his way into the hearts of several PPP and UF MPs, so he didn’t need the UF no mo’!! Did you, dear reader, think Charrandas was the first to cross the floor of the Public Buildings?? Ha!! In politics, of course, “sweet talk” means offering inducements, like “Minister wuk” and so on!! The “sweetness” is in the perks!!

But back to our present contretemps-in-the-making over who has claim over the most valuable assets coming out of that marriage – the seats in the National Assembly!! And secondly, when and how can the marriage be dissolved according to the pre-nup?? Now, how many of the 31 seats should go to each party should be simple, no?? According to Ramjattan, just go by how many seats were apportioned when the spoils were divvied up after the 2020 elections – NINE to the AFC!!

But while Aubrey’s gonna argue the AFC didn’t earn those seats, how in the world is he gonna prove that? And with possession being nine-tenths of the law and all that, your Eyewitness sees the AFC keeping those seats when they leave!! As Ramjattan said, he doesn’t see “the Leader of the List, Mr. David Granger, changing that”!! And when can the AFC leave?? Ramjattan says according to the “Accord”, in three or five years, and he’s opting for three.

So exactly how’s Norton gonna stop the AFC-9 from decamping?? He can always follow Burnham and offer “inducements” to some who see AFC as dead meat!!

…love??

Few things exemplify our colonial mentality than our retention of our Victorian-era laws on sex and sexual morality. But that has been changing, hasn’t it? Take the sexual double-standard, that men wanted and needed sex while women didn’t, and submitted to sex only to please their husbands!! Women who – God forbid!! –demonstrated any desire for sex were “loose”!! But we’re past that now, aren’t we??

Now, while we’ve blamed “Victorian morality” for the “anti-buggery” laws still on our books, the Buggery Act was passed as far back as the 1530s. They made sexual relations between men a criminal offence punishable by death, till 1861. Two decades later, during Victoria’s reign in 1893, the Anti-buggery Act also created the offence of “gross indecency” for any same-sex male sexual relations, punishable by life imprisonment. Now, can someone say exactly how such acts performed in private can harm society??

Let’s call this outdated law for what it is: immoral for criminalising acts of expressions of love!! Get it off the books!!

…arms?

The PNC and AFC’s dispute on whether their Accord is for “three years or five years” invoked Sierra Leone’s civil war question: “short sleeve or long sleeve”?  The former meant you wanted your arm chopped off above the elbow; the latter at the wrist!!