ACTING Chancellor of the Judiciary Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards is scheduled to meet Attorney General (AG) Basil Williams and Attorneys-at-Law representing the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland and Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo on Friday, ahead of hearing the appeal on the High Court’s decision on the December 21 vote of no-confidence.

The Speaker is being represented by Senior Counsel Rafiq Khan, and the opposition leader by Anil Nandlall – a former attorney general under the People’s Progressive/Civic (PPP/C) administration.

Williams, in a brief interview with the Guyana Chronicle on Tuesday, confirmed that the parties in the matter have been invited to a meeting at the Court of Appeal on Friday at 09:15hrs. The attorney general has filed a total of four applications at the Court of Appeal, appealing the decision of Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire. The judge, at the level of the High Court, upheld the ruling by the Speaker of the National Assembly that the no-confidence motion was validly passed following the acquisition of a one-seat majority vote by the opposition. The opposition had garnered the support of Charrandass Persaud, a government Member of Parliament who crossed the floor and had voted in favour of the motion to topple his own government. It is unclear whether the chancellor will do case management during the meeting on Friday.

On Monday, the AG applied to the Appellate Court for an interim stay to halt the decision of the High Court, and to preserve the status quo of the Cabinet. Chief Justice George-Wiltshire on January 31, 2019, had ruled that the no-confidence motion was validly passed with the opposition securing a majority (33) over the government (32). She had also ruled that Cabinet, including the President, ought to have resigned with immediate effect

following the the government’s defeat. She handed down the judgements in the cases– The Attorney General v The Speaker and Leader of the Opposition, and Christopher Ram v The Attorney General and the Opposition Leader.

The AG has filed appeals in both cases, however; in the interim, he is asking the Appellate Court to issue an order for an interim stay of the effect of the judgements and orders of the chief justice, and a conservatory order preserving the status quo ante of the Cabinet. He wants the President, Cabinet and all ministers of the government to remain in office until the hearing and determination of the appeal in the matter.

In the Affidavit in support of the summons in the case of the Attorney General v The Speaker and Leader of the Opposition, State Counsel Raeanna Clarke swore to the affidavit.

Clarke said based on the advice of her lawyers, she believes that the chief justice erred and misdirected herself in law when she ruled that the motion of no-confidence upon a division vote of 33:32 Members of the National Assembly was validly passed as the requisite majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly, pursuant to Article 106 (6) of the constitution.

The state counsel told the court that the chief justice miscalculated the majority of all elected members of the National Assembly as required under Article 106(6) of the constitution for the government to be defeated on a vote of no-confidence. “In order for the government to be defeated on a vote of no- confidence, 34 or more votes of all the elected members in favour of the motion was required, instead of 33,” she contended. According to her, an absolute majority is calculated as half plus one and where,

mathematically, half of all the elected members of the Parliament would result in a fraction, the method of calculation of the absolute majority is that the fraction is rounded to the next whole number and one is added to result in a number greater than half.
Clarke put forward similar arguments in her affidavit in the case of Christopher Ram v the Attorney General and Opposition Leader.

“It is contended that the effect of the ruling of the chief justice that Cabinet ceased with immediate effect on the night of the no-confidence motion on 21st December, 2018, will mean that the government will be unable to introduce any financial bills for passage. This is because, in accordance with Article 171 of the constitution, these bills require the recommendation and/or consent of the Cabinet signified by a minister. In these circumstances, the government will be unable to fund the preparation and holding of elections by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), if the effect of the ruling of the chief justice is not stayed as prayed for herein,” Clarke told the court.

She said it is contended that the status quo ante is that the President, Cabinet and government will continue in their roles and functions until the hearing and determination of the appeal herein. State Counsel said she believes that the conservatory order is necessary to preserve the status quo ante, as the period for the hearing and determination of the matter may expire before that time prescribed in Article 106 (7) of the constitution, which requires that the President and government remain in office and hold elections within three (3) months.