Dear Editor
I AM shocked that Mr. Kamal Ramkarran, head of the Guyana Bar Association, wants the Speaker of the National Assembly to accept the vote on the no-confidence motion as fulfilment of requirements in our constitution to remove an elected government from office.
Clearly, the Bar is trying to stymie the Speaker from revisiting and interpreting the vote of 33 for, 32 against, in a 65 member National Assembly, as against the requirement of the constitution for a majority of all elected members.

I have read several authorities on the subject of a majority of all elected members and none would support the position of our Bar Association. It must be aware of the vote in the UK on December 12, among Conservative Party MPs: of the 315 members, Prime Minister Theresa May needed 159 to gain a simple majority. It was calculated on what is the universally accepted principle of 50 per cent plus one. The 50% of 315 is 157.5, but since there was no one-half MP, it was rounded up to 158. To arrive at a simple majority, one MP was added, making it 159.

It must sound logical that were the Guyana parliament composed of 64 members, that one-half would be 32, and a majority would be 33. As head of the GBA, Mr. Ramkarran jnr could have used common sense, instead of legal brilliance, to conclude that 33 could not also be a majority of 65 – which is the present composition of the National Assembly.

If the majority of 64 and 65 is 33, then it must be concluded that there is a contention whether the numbers 64 and 65 are equal. Even a primary school child would conclude that the resolution of this contention would not be a cause for instability in the country. I urge our legal minds not to easily abandon principles of constitutional correctness, for political expediency.
Regards
Earl Hamilton