Guyana gov’t challenges no-confidence vote

After facing a defeat in no-confidence vote Guyana government has compiled a number of compelling arguments to prove that the no-confidence motion, though declared ‘passed’, is null, void, and of no effect on the basis that the opposition did not secure a majority in the National Assembly; and the voting process was further compromised by the involvement of an individual who holds allegiance to a foreign power.

The A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) Government finalised its position approximately one week after the no-confidence motion, filed by the Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo, was declared passed by Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland during the 111th Sitting of the National Assembly on December 21, 2018.

For more than six hours, political heavyweights from both sides of the House debated the motion, and when it was finally put to a vote, AFC back-bencher Charrandass Persaud broke ranks and voted in favour of the motion to bring down his government. The Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs recorded the result of the vote as 33 for the motion of no confidence and 32 against the motion. He subsequently signed Resolution No. 101 as passed by the National Assembly on December 21, 2018 which resolved that “That this National Assembly has no confidence in the government.”

But the government is arguing that there was a misrepresentation of what constitutes a majority in the 65-Member National Assembly.

In a report submitted to the Speaker and Cabinet, Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister, Basil Williams submitted that there 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.

“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 was required instead of 33. This assertion is grounded in established parliamentary precedent and practice and case law in the Commonwealth,” the report, which was leaked to a reigonal newspaper, read.

It said the matter now brings into question several critical legal issues for consideration by the Speaker. Among the questions are: (1) “whether 33 votes in favour of the motion of no confidence amounted to a majority of all elected members in accordance with Article 106 (6) of the Constitution?” and secondly, “whether Resolution 101 is constitutional and effective and passed in accordance Article 106 (6) of the Constitution?”

Article 106 (6) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana states that: “The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.”

In the report, the attorney general explained that “the constitutional requirement for voting on a motion of no-confidence is distinct from voting on the passage of legislation and ordinary motions in Parliament.”

It was noted that the framers of the Constitution, by requiring the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly, have set the requirement as an absolute majority.

Another argument being put on the table by the government is Charrandass Persaud’s legitimacy as a Member Parliament before his expulsion from the AFC and by extension government.

Williams said evidence shows that Persaud held a passport and possessed the rights and obligations as a citizen of Canada which is a foreign power from nomination day of the last General and Regional Elections in 2015, including and up to the time of voting upon the motion of no-confidence.

He said the case of Dabdoub, Abraham v Daryl Vaz, Carlton Harris & Attorney General Claim No. 2007 HCV 03921 illustrates the principle that a person who has taken positive steps to acquire citizenship by applying for citizenship in a foreign State is deemed to be disqualified to be elected as a member of the National Assembly.

It was noted that Persaud by virtue of his Canadian citizenship was disqualified to be elected a Member of the National Assembly of Guyana and had no legal right to vote as an elected member of the House.

“The vote of ‘Yes’ by Mr Persaud in favour of the motion of no confidence on the 21st day of December, 2018 in the National Assembly on the 21st December, 2018 is null and void and cannot be counted as a vote of an elected member of the National Assembly,” Williams said.

On the basis of these arguments, the Speaker will be invited to reverse the ruling issued on December 21, 2018.