I have a political opinion, an empathetic confusion if you like, and is motivated by the "three-year-limit" debate trending on here: for my part, what some of the opinions I read are implying is as if President Barrow's presidency is just a short-term experiment, and I think that's unjust and so backhanded a thing.
I just want to ask: was the MoU's three-year provision conclusive; was it not just a planned period of play, meaning it could stretch to the statutory five when necessary? If not, and if the President resigns after year three to honour the agreement and hands over to a transitional head, wouldn't the remaining two years be the same Coalition Government still, or is it just about the man's person?
If you ask me, a Memorandum of Understanding deserves respect, I know that, but when ungrounded in logic and in logistics, or is fiscally constraining, it's only prudent to review/revise it. But that's perhaps why all the coalition partners are silent thus far. After all, and though fairly formal, it's just a gentlemen's agreement. I don't think it can be held as legally binding and as if it supercedes the constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment