LOCAL attorneys-at-law Nigel Hughes and Ralph Ramkarran have put forward theories to suggest that the recently passed no-confidence motion against the coalition government is invalid.

In a Facebook post on Sunday, Hughes rationalised that: “for a no-confidence motion to pass and be valid, the motion has to enjoy more votes than one half of the full House.”
At the time of the no-confidence motion, there were 65 members of Guyana’s National Assembly with 33 sitting represented by the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) + Alliance For Change (AFC) and 32 by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).
Hughes stated that, mathematically, one half of the house when divided stands at 32.5 members but there can be no such thing as half a member.

“There is no such thing as a half member so half of the house is 33 members,” he stated, adding: “This is because you have to round up to identify half of the House.”
On Friday, at the conclusion of the debate of the no-confidence motion put forward by Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo, when called upon to vote individually, AFC member [now former] Charrandas Persaud, opted to vote in favour of the motion.
It was recorded that the House, possessing a mere one-seat majority, voted 33:32.
According to the Constitution, in such a case general elections must be held within 90 days of a successful no-confidence motion.

However, guided by his position on the matter, Hughes lamented that such bypassed the many lawyers of the National Assembly, as he posited: “The motion consequently was not carried.”

Meanwhile, Ramkarran in a Stabroek News article one month ago titled ‘Tied vote on budget bill would see gov’t fall’, had put forward similar reasoning.

“The PPP needs two votes. One would only neutralise the advantage but the other will see them winning the motion, unlike in the passage of the Appropriation Bill. If there is a tie when the no-confidence motion goes to the floor then the Standing Orders state that the motion doesn’t pass. And by the same logic, if the Appropriation [Bill] is put to the House and there is a tie then that doesn’t pass or it is defeated. That is very serious because what that means is that the government will fall,” he had said.

Explaining further in the news article on the Bill, Ramkarran stated: “The Appropriation Bill provides the authority for the government to spend. If they don’t have authority to spend state funds, not a cent, then that is end of the government. So forget the no-confidence motion down the road that needs two, just one person not there or vote against the Appropriation Bill, the government is finished”.

However, concerns regarding this were made void when the National Assembly on December 14, 2018 passed the country’s biggest budget to date at $300.7B, despite vigorous opposition.

Now, the only lingering contention is whether the division of votes taken on Friday last, when mathematically assessed, meets the mandate of the Constitution.