…AG confident gov’t has strong case
THE Speaker of the National Assembly will likely pronounce on the outcome of the no-confidence motion when the National Assembly meets on Thursday, now that the government has approached him to review his ruling.
The motion filed by the Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo was declared passed by the Speaker during 111th Sitting of the National Assembly on December 21, 2018. However, since then there have been many arguments put forward on whether the opposition had secured an absolute majority for the motion to be legitimately passed.
Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister, Basil Williams said regardless of the Speaker’s final ruling on the passage of the motion, it is highly likely that the matter would be placed before the courts by either the government or the opposition, reaching as far as the Caribbean Court of Justice—the country’s final court of appeal. The CCJ’s decision will determine when General and Regional Elections will be held.
Williams, during a press conference at his Carmichael Street Office on Monday, disclosed that the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) Government submitted a brief to the Speaker on Sunday evening, and requested that he revises his decision.
In that Legal Memorandum, government puts forward a position that the was a miscalculation of the majority of all elected members as required under Article 106(6) of the Constitution for the government to be defeated on a vote of no confidence.
Defining majority as 50 per cent plus one, the attorney general, who was instrumental in compiling the Legal Memorandum, said for the motion to be effectively passed, the opposition needed an absolute majority and not a simple majority.
“This government was not defeated by a majority as required under Article 106(6) of the Constitution. In order for the government to be defeated on a vote of confidence, 34 or more votes of all the elected members in favour of the motion were required instead of 33. This assertion is grounded in established Parliamentary precedent and practice and case law in the Commonwealth,” he stated.
He explained that with the National Assembly comprising 65 members, mathematically half of all the elected members would result in a fraction of 32.5. “There are judicial authorities to show that where a number results in a fraction it is rounded up. In the instant case as half of 65 results in the fraction of 32.5, this figure should then be rounded to the next whole number being 33 which would now represent half of the elected members.
In accordance with the practical application of the meaning of majority ‘1’ must now be added to ‘33’ to derive at a majority of 34 votes,” the attorney general further explained.
He said the Speaker is duty bound to observe the Constitution as the supreme law of Guyana, therefore, if there is a ruling of the Speaker which is unconstitutional that error can be revisited and corrected by him.
If Dr. Scotland rules that 33 constitute a majority, and as such the motion was carried as announced on December 21, 2018, the attorney general the government will move to the court.
“The Judiciary which is one of the three arms of the State will intervene where the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, is abridged. Therefore, the Court can nullify the Speaker’s decision if it is found to be unconstitutional,” he told reporters.
The attorney general said government is prepared to defend its case.
The case of Kilman Kilman v Speaker of Parliament of the Republic of Vanuatu [2011] VUCA 15; Civil Appeal 09 of 2011 (13 May 2011) is among cases government is using to validate its position.
The case determined the validity of the Speaker’s ruling upon a motion of no-confidence where the votes were closely divided. In ruling on the matter, the Court said:
“The present case illustrates the context of a dispute when the votes are close to evenly divided numbers.
Parliament consists of 52 members which is an even number of members. If 26 members voted for the motion of no confidence, and 26 others voted against the motion, the motion is not passed by a majority of the Members of Parliament within the meaning of Article 43(2) of the Constitution. If the motion receives at least one half plus one, it receives a majority of the members of Parliament. Again this is what the constitutional framers intended in the interest of stable governments.”
The case of UK Prime Minister Theresa May has also been cited by legal luminaries. The UK prime minister won the confidence vote regarding her leadership after it was challenged by a number of Conservative Members of Parliament. However, prior to the vote, international news agencies widely reported that May needed “at least 159 out of 315 Conservative MPs” to win by a simple majority.
When the UK’s 315 total is divided, it arrives at 157.5 members. This figure was rounded off to158 as what represents half of the total number of members while an extra vote [159] would represent a majority.
The Opposition—People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) has rebutted this line of argument and maintains that 33 represents a majority in the House and the motion was carried. If the Speaker on Thursday rules in favor of the government, it is likely that the opposition will also move to the court.
