Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, Gail Teixeira, has affirmed that there is no precedent to warrant a resignation of any member of Cabinet from the House, regardless of a successful passage of a confidence motion.

Teixeira was pronouncing on whether a motion of confidence can be brought against a Cabinet member, also a MP, similar to how one can be brought against a government, as the country witnessed in December 2018 when Charrandass Persaud voted his party, the A Partnership For National Unity + Alliance For Change government, out of office.

She was at the time speaking on the no-confidence motion against Health Minister, Dr. Frank Anthony and Minister of Home Affairs, Robeson Benn, filed by Opposition Leader Joseph Harmon, which contends that the two ministers have persistently demonstrated inability to effectively undertake their duties in their sectors.

In July 2012, then Leader of the Opposition David Granger had moved a motion of no-confidence against then Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, which was passed successfully. She highlighted, however, that there was no “requirement” for Rohee to resign.

“In most Parliaments where you have no-confidence motions, even those that are first-past-the-post system, the ministers don’t have to resign because it is non-legally binding in that you have to bring a no-confidence against the entire government in that sense,” she said.

“There had been no-confidence motions against ministers, nine times out of 10 they never resigned; they stay with the system because generally those motions are defeated in the first place because the government group comes together in solidarity and defend their person,” she added.

The Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Minister referenced the current motion of no-confidence raised against the Health Minister of Guyana’s regional counterpart, Trinidad and Tobago Terrance Deyalsingh, based on accusations pertaining to his management of the COVID-19 pandemic in that country, and compared it to the “one-line” motion moved against Dr Anthony and Benn.

UNUSUAL

“It’s usually very unusual for a motion against a minister to just be one line, when you bring down a government is one line ‘we longer have confidence in the government,’ but when is the minister you have to be accusing them of something,” she said.

She noted that in most cases the motions would be brought based on the performance of the minister, or if he/she has been involved in any misconduct, regardless of if it is in or out of the Parliament chamber, as they are dealt with as parliamentarians through the motions.

She opined that therefore the motions are not “proper” from a parliamentary perspective, as the motions do not even explicitly expound on the ministers deficiencies, which will enable them and their government a chance to defend their record.

She reflected that in relation to the motion pertaining to Rohee in 2012, he did not resign, as he was not constitutionally required to do so. She further disclosed that subsequent to a motion being successfully passed, the opposition attempted to prevent the MP a chance to speak in the chamber of the National Assembly.

“After which, Mr. Granger brought a second motion against Rohee, that was to silence him, he was going to sit but mustn’t speak, that didn’t go to the floor because it was sent to the Privilege Committee pending the case before the Chief Justice Ian Chang,” she explained, noting, the then chief justice had ruled that no MP must be silenced.

She explained that Rohee was allowed to speak for the first time in the House on February 22, 2013 by then Speaker, Raphael Trotman. However, it was with thorough rejection from the opposition’s side of the House.

“He was saying you can’t stop him from speaking, but he allowed total disorder in the House every time Rohee went to speak; so simple things like Rohee reading the first reading of a bill he couldn’t get up and do that,” she said.

BRING TOGETHER

Teixeira outlined that with the filing of such a motion, the opposition might have had a chance to “embarrass” the minister; however, she posited that generally these motions backfire in the sense that they reignite the cohesive flame between members of the government, bringing them together in solidarity.

“Government, many times, all over the world, uses this no-confidence motion against their ministers to go out and champion their cause and many times the opposition is made to look diminished in the eyes of people, because this is an opportunity for the government,” she said.

Against this backdrop, Teixeira reasoned that generally the most “responsible” Opposition leaders, not the “reckless” ones like the current Leader of the Opposition, Joseph Harmon, will treat a motion of confidence against government ministers with “great caution.”

Touching on the government’s majority in the House, PPP/C MP, attorney-at-law Sanjeev Datadin opined that “obviously” the motion will come to a vote and therefore it should not be allowed, because the government has the majority and it’s simply “a waste of time.”

“The motion doesn’t say what it is it’s complaining about, which is just laziness. If you have a complaint about a minister, you should have the decency to say, this, this, this … pure laziness. You have no confidence in him, why? It is not an opinion-based thing,” Datadin said.

The attorney-at-law explained that the parliamentary structure is established in a manner to facilitate debate; he asked the question: “What are you going to debate?” as he posited that the MPs will have to sit and waste precious parliamentary time which can be used to debate matters of greater importance.

“The realities of it are this is a publicity stunt and a very poor one at that. At some stage the opposition has got to start being an opposition … the opposition needs to do their job; a good government requires proper opposition,” he said.