…PPP led challenge of matter to the CCJ

Contrary to a recent report in the Guyana Times on Monday, it was the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland, who had referred the No-Confidence Motion to the Courts, and not the Government of Guyana.

In an article published in the newspaper under the headline “Caribbean wonders reasons for Govt approaching CCJ – UWI Political Science Head…,” it was reported that observers are questioning the rationale behind Government’s decision to approach the court on the matter. But what are the facts of the situation?

According to the facts, the Speaker, approximately 13 days after declaring that the No-Confidence Motion had been passed, referred the matter to the Court for “full, final and complete settlement.” He had explained then that since the passage of the motion on December 21, he received from diverse sources, information backed by case law and practice from other jurisdictions which had raised doubts as to whether the no-confidence motion was effectively carried.

“The information which I have received raises two issues. The first of these issues included a claim supported by several cases that the requirement for the successful passing of a No-confidence Motion is a majority of the elected members of the National Assembly.
“That majority, it is contended, was to be formed by a mathematical half of the elected membership of the National Assembly which is 65 plus the vote of one other member. Such a formula would require a majority of 34 votes instead of 33 by which the No-confidence motion was declared carried,” the Speaker had explained during the January 3, 2019 Sitting of the National Assembly.

It was on that basis that Dr. Scotland referred the matter to the court. “Full, final and complete settlement of these issues by a Court of competent jurisdiction will place beyond doubt any question which may exist and serve to give guidance to the Speaker and to the National Assembly for the future,” Dr. Scotland said as he addressed the National Assembly in the voluntary absence of the Opposition.

The next day, a New Amsterdam farmer, Compton Reid, filed an ‘Urgent Fixed Date Application’ in the High Court challenging the validity of the vote cast by Charrandass Persaud, who had defected and voted in favour of the Opposition-sponsored Motion to bring down his Government. Reid, through his lawyers Rex McKay, S.C; Neil Boston, S.C.; and Robert Corbin, had asked the High Court to set aside the order of the Speaker that the No Confidence Motion, Resolution No. 101 was passed on the grounds that Persaud not only crossed the floor but occupied a seat in the National Assembly despite being a dual citizen. At the time, he was in total breach of the Constitution.

Article 155 (1) (a) of the Constitution states: “No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly who – (a) is, by virtue of his or her own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state.”
It was not until January 7, 2019 that the Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister, Basil Williams filed a challenge to the motion, in keeping with the advice of the Speaker. The Attorney General argued that the Parliamentary Opposition did not secure an absolute majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly as stipulated by Article 106 (6) of the Constitution. Though Persaud had defected, the Parliamentary Opposition – the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) had only secured 33 votes. “In the instant case as half of 65 results in the fraction of 32.5, that figure should then be rounded to the next whole number being 33 which would now represent half of the elected members, the majority thereby being a number greater than half means that ‘1’ ought to have been added to the whole number ‘33’ to calculate an absolute majority of 34,” the Attorney General had argued.

Though the passage of the motion was upheld when Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire handed down her decision in the High Court on January 31, the Court of Appeal, by a 2-1 margin, adopted Government’s position that an absolute majority was required. , Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory ruled that the Opposition needed 34 votes to defeat the Government and not 33. Justice Rishi Persaud, however, had a dissenting opinion. Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory ruled that the Opposition needed 34 votes to defeat the Government and not 33. Justice Rishi Persaud, however, had a dissenting opinion.

While the Guyana Times’ report indicated that the Government had approached the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), it is public knowledge that it was the Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo; recalled Member of Parliament, Charrandass Persaud; and political commentator, Christopher Ram, who had turned to the CCJ. The Government has long indicated that it will respect the ruling of the CCJ, as was done in previous cases.