…gov’t says settled on way forward on results of no confidence vote
…decisions to be made public soon

THE A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) Government has taken a number of decisions on its treatment of the no-confidence motion which was recently ‘passed’ in the National Assembly.

Such decisions will be made public, the government said on Thursday. It is believed that the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland may be asked to rule at the next sitting that the vote of no-confidence in the government was not carried because it required 34 votes or more – a majority, and not 33.

AFC Member of Parliament Charrandas Persuad supported the motion and voted with the opposition to bring down the government. However, legal luminaries have put forward several arguments to the effect that a majority in Guyana’s National Assembly is 34 and not 33. With one-half of the House mathematically equaling to 32.5 members, half of the House would therefore be 33 members, thereby suggesting that a total of 34 votes would be needed to secure the majority, Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes has argued.

In a statement, the Government of Guyana said its Cabinet met on Thursday and received a report from a Special Legal Sub-Committee which was formed to analyze the no-confidence motion and make necessary recommendations.

“The Chairman of the Sub-Committee, Attorney General Basil Williams SC, updated Cabinet on the matter and presented a number of recommendations. Cabinet discussed various options and took certain decisions on the way forward,” the government said.

The other members of the committee are: Vice-President and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carl Greenidge; Minister of Public Security Khemraj Ramjattan and Minister of Natural Resources Raphael Trotman. The Coalition Government is assuring its supporters and the public that it will pursue all available options and act in the best interest of all Guyanese.

Meanwhile, Guyana Chronicle reported on Thursday that the mathematical means being suggested by a number of local and international attorneys to settle Guyana’s vote of “majority” in the House is not unfounded as the United Kingdom (UK), just recently, used the same formula although at the end, Prime Minister Theresa May won by several votes clear.

Since the vote on the motion—33:32 on December 21, 2018, legal arguments have surfaced stating that the number of votes which carried the motion is inadequate. With one-half of the House mathematically equaling to 32.5 members, half of the House would therefore be 33 members, thereby suggesting that a total of 34 votes would be needed to secure the majority.

In one of the most recent and similar cases this month, UK Prime Minister Theresa May won the confidence vote regarding her leadership after it was challenged by a number of Conservative Members of Parliament. However, prior to the vote, international news agencies widely reported that May needed “at least 159 out of 315 Conservative MPs” to win by a simple majority.

Similar to Guyana’s uneven number of 65 sitting members of the National Assembly, when the UK’s 315 total is divided, it arrives at 157.5 members.
This figure was rounded off to 158 as what represents half of the total number of members while an extra vote [159] would represent a majority.

This is cited in a CNBC article on December 12 titled ‘UK Prime Minister Theresa May wins confidence vote, but faces uphill battle to pass Brexit deal’ where it states: “May needed a simple majority (at least 159 out of 315 Conservative MPs) to win the confidence vote. Winning this vote means her leadership cannot be challenged for another year now.” May eventually secured 200 votes, staving off the motion.

Hughes had also put forward, this week, a number of other cases where a similar case of what constitutes the “majority” was debated. These included the Kliman v Speaker of Parliament of the Republic of Vanuatu; Hughes v Rogers Civil Suit 99 and 101 of 1999. Anguilla. Delivered Jan 12, 2000.

Unchartered waters
The passing of the motion puts Guyana somewhat in ‘unchartered waters’ as, should it ultimately be approved, it would be the first time that the government would have to resign to hold elections in 90 days.

According to a post made on Tuesday on social media by the Office of the Prime Minister, it stated: “Guyana has entered unchartered waters with that vote, and legal opinions have since been expressed, and are being expressed, as to whether it satisfies requirements of the Constitution for the resignation of the duly-elected government. In the meantime, the government remains at work.”
It is suspected that with the new interrogations regarding the legitimacy of the no-confidence motion and the legal interpretations of what constitutes a majority, the government may very well request a revision.

No legal effect
U.S.-based Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy (CGID) has put another argument on the table which suggests that the passage of the no-confidence motion against the government was “null, void and of no legal effect” because of an illegality committed by then Government MP, Persaud.

CGID is arguing that Persaud breached the constitution when he assented to the no-confidence motion without first declaring his intent to the Speaker. CGID wrote the Speaker and to the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Basil Williams to this effect.

In the letter, the body put forward that Article 156:3 of Guyana’s constitution states that a member of the National Assembly elected on a list shall cease to be a member only under certain conditions.

These include that “he or she declares in writing to the Speaker or to the Representative of the list from which his or her name was extracted, that he or she will not support the list from which his or her name was extracted,” or that “he or she declares in writing to the Speaker or to the Representative of the list from which his or her name was extracted, his or her support for another list.”

In the letter signed by the organisation’s president Rickford Burke, the body stated that Persaud, by complying with neither of the guidelines, breached the constitution which should have seen the nullification of his act and his disqualification from the House.
CGID said further that article 156:3 safeguards against the government “bringing itself down” and therefore stipulates “public withdrawal” or “public declaration of support” for any list.

PSC heartened
Meanwhile, the Private Sector Commission (PSC) said it is heartened by the principled positions taken by the President David Granger, the Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo and the Speaker of the National Assembly regarding the outcome of the vote of no confidence as well as the subsequent public statement by the leader of the opposition on the subject of national unity.

“Our democracy has evolved in a very positive way. We also welcome the public pronouncement by GECOM that they are ready for elections,” it said.
The PSC also pledged to work with all political parties, members of civil society and all stakeholders to seek a peaceful lead-up to the much anticipated National and Regional elections.