– Legal teams opposing the No-Confidence Motion argue

CHARRANDASS Persaud’s breach of the Constitution invalidated his vote in the National Assembly, Senior Counsel Neil Boston told the Appellate Court on Wednesday as he called for the No-Confidence Motion against the Government to be quashed.

Boston said not only was Persaud a “usurper” in the House but the expelled Alliance for Change (AFC) Executive failed to declare his intention to vote against the list from which his name was extracted, as required by the Constitution.

Senior Counsel Boston was among lawyers that appeared in the Court before Chancellor of Judiciary, Yonette Cummings Edwards, and Justices of Appeal, Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud in the case Compton Reid v Speaker of the National Assembly, Charrandass Persaud, Attorney General, Leader of the Opposition and Joseph Harmon. The Senior Counsel is representing the appellant in association with Senior Counsel Rex McKay and Attorney-at-Law Robert Corbin.

During his spirited argument that stretched for approximately two hours, Senior Counsel Boston explained that Persaud contravened Article 156 (3) of the Constitution when he failed to notify the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland or the List Representative that he had intended to vote against the list from which his name was extracted. Instead of complying with the Constitution, Persaud waited for the “appropriate time” and voted to bring down his own Government, the Senior Counsel said but noted that the vote was of no effect because it cannot override the constitution – the supreme law of the land.

“It was his intention to participate in the proceeding by a back door method,” Boston told the full bench.
He explained that had Persaud informed the Speaker or the Representative of the List that he was no longer in support of the list from which his name was extracted, he would have ceased to be a member, and therefore would not have been in a position to vote.
According to Senior Counsel Boston, Article 156 (3) is intended to prevent Members of Parliament from voting against the lists from which their names were extracted. “The intention is very clear, a Member of the National Assembly cannot vote against a list from which his name was extracted. This requirement must be complied with as a matter of constitutional law,” he argued. He posited that Members of Parliament either support the lists from which their names were extracted or resign, noting that they are not permitted to cross the floor.

Boston noted that Persaud’s name was among four names listed on the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) list for the geographical constituency of Region Six, emphasizing that the electors voted for a party and not a candidate in the system of representative democracy.

“Nobody voted for Charrandass, they voted for the list,” the Senior Counsel posited, while reiterating that Persaud had no authority to vote against the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) list.

Boston submitted that Article 156 (3) safeguards the system of representative democracy, and, on that basis, Persaud’s vote on the night of December 21, 2018 was invalid.

Reid, through his attorney, also argued that Persaud breached Article 155 of the Constitution which bars Members of Parliament from having dual citizenship. Persaud is a citizen of Canada. Persaud held valid Canadian Passports from the year 1998 to the present date, and was therefore disqualified from being a Member of Parliament. According to Boston, Persaud was a “usurper” in the National Assembly.

In the High Court, Chief Justice Roxane-George Wiltshire ruled that the vote cast by Persaud was valid even as she confirmed his dual citizen status. However, the Chief Justice indicated that she had no jurisdiction to rule on whether his presence in the National Assembly was illegal, and as such, could not have nullified his nomination as a Candidate for the APNU+AFC. According to her, the application should have been in the form of an elections petition and not a Fixed Date Application but Senior Counsel Boston disagreed.

According to him, judicial activism was absent when the Chief Justice delivered her ruling, and ought to have interpreted the Constitution in a broad and purposive manner. He maintained that the application was properly placed and did not treat with the vacancy of a seat in the National Assembly, but the unconstitutional acts committed by a member.
He alluded to Article 163 of the Constitution which gives the High Court and the Court of Appeal, “exclusive jurisdiction” to adjudicate and determine the matters listed in the said Article (1) (a), (b) (i) (ii) and (iv), (c) and (d).

The National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act Chapter, 1:04 is constitutionally grounded in the said Article 163 (4), which provides for Parliament to make provisions to facilitate the proper discharge by the High Court and the Court of Appeal of their constitutional mandate of “exclusive jurisdiction”.

Sanjeev Datadin, the attorney representing Persaud, told the Court that Article 64 is clear. That Article states that “All questions as to membership of the National Assembly shall be determined by the High Court in accordance with the provisions of Article 163.”

“That provision is unambiguous” he told the Court while arguing that Persaud’s presence in the National Assembly ought to have been challenged by way of an elections petition within the specified timeframe (28 days after an election) but with that time long expired, Reid has no case.

Datadin submitted to the Court that the National Assembly regulates its own procedures and makes its own rules as guaranteed by Article 165, and only allows the High Court to intervene in the case of membership as stipulated by Article 64.

Like the Chief Justice, Datadin argued that Article 65 (2) saved “the day,” and validated the actions of Persaud notwithstanding his dual citizenship status.

Solicitor General Nigel Hawke, Attorneys-at-Law Mayo Roberson and Roysdale Forde also submitted arguments in favour of the case brought by Reid, while Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo’s Attorney Anil Nandlall submitted opposing arguments.