PROMINENT Attorney Mr. Nigel Hughes has introduced a novel opinion that for the approval of a confidence motion, a majority has to be one-half plus one of all elected members of the National Assembly.

This formula would read mathematically ½ +1= majority.

We find the arguments of Mr. Hughes very compelling, that is, without prejudice to how the Speaker would interpret the constitutional provision to determine whether the 33:32 vote by division on the no-confidence motion satisfies the threshold for the removal of the elected government. It appears that the prevailing view at the time of the motion being tabled and debated was that for its passage, it needed more than one-half of all the elected members of parliament voting in favour of it. This is where the principle of a majority being one-half plus one of all the members comes into play.

Assuming that Guyana’s National Assembly had 64 elected members, one half of them would be 32. A majority would be 32 plus 1, which is 33. When the composition of the House moves upwards to 65 members, a majority cannot be the same as if there were 64 members. It has to be a higher number.

We have seen contrary arguments that with the full House standing at 65, one-half of the members would be 32.5 (thirty-two and a half members). To get a majority, according to these arguments, all that is needed is to add .5 or one-half of a member to the 32.5 to make it 33.

It is our view, and that of many people, that the Constitution of Guyana would never have contemplated that there would be half-a-vote. There is NO half member in the National Assembly, even if the rogue MP had felt that way about himself.

We have been advised that to arrive at one-half of the 65 members of the House, the number of 32.5 has to be rounded upwards to 33. To get a majority, it needs an additional full vote, which makes the qualifying number 34.

It seems that what transpired in the National Assembly on December 21 needs a full investigation, and the opinion of the best legal luminaries in Guyana and the Caribbean. To allow a government to fall on a flawed assumption of regularity would be an irreparable damage to our fragile democratic system and an assault on the Rule of Law. It would be a surrender to a parliamentary coup.

The arguments advanced by Mr. Hughes need critical examination whether to get one-half of 65, it would require a round-up of the one-half number (32.5) to the next higher number, which is 33, and consequently, the passage of a confidence motion in Guyana’s Parliament would require 34 members.

From information in wide circulation, it seems that the legal opinion that 34 is a majority has been known to the former PPP/C government since 2014, when it was faced with a no-confidence motion. Some legal minds have opined that if that were the case, the opposition PPP/C had a duty to disclose to the Honourable Speaker as a material fact, the existence of the legal opinion. That would have helped the Speaker in his interpretation of the 33:32 vote, and in determining what should be the consequences of those numbers.

If the Speaker were to be persuaded by these legal opinions, he would not be the first to revisit or even recall his ruling. In some countries where similar situations had arisen, such as in Vanuatu, the judiciary has been invited to pronounce on the interpretation of specific provisions of the constitution.

There are already insinuations that the outcome in the National Assembly on December 21, where a government MP voted with the opposition, was irregularly procured. If fraud were to be proven then, as we were advised, that would be enough to vitiate what Mr. Hughes has described as the December 21 “pantomime in parliament.”

Moreover, the removal of a constitutionally elected government, if conspired and aided in any manner or form by corrupt and unlawful means, could be tantamount to treason. The matter now is in the Speaker’s court to address the consequences of that vote.