Today’s sitting of National Assembly ‘illegal’ – PPP/C
The opposition PPP/C has written to Speaker of the National Assembly Dr Barton Scotland, contending that today’s sitting of the National Assembly is unconstitutional and therefore should not be held.
“The Parliamentary Opposition is of the view that the business that is scheduled to be considered by the National Assembly on the 3rd January, 2019, is not in compliance with Article 106(7) of the Constitution. Therefore, any sitting of the National Assembly that is not in compliance with this article is a violation of the Constitution. Thus, the Parliamentary Opposition will not participate in undermining the Constitution, and, further recommend that this sitting should not be held,” Opposition Chief Whip Gail Teixeira said in a letter to Scotland dated December 31, 2018.
The PPP released the letter to the media last evening.
In the letter, Teixeira said that the opposition is aware that the administration has requested a review of the no-confidence motion against the government, which was moved, debated and passed on the 21st December, 2018.
“The Parliamentary Opposition is of the view that the No Confidence Motion having been conclusively dealt with, in, and, by the National Assembly on the 21st December, 2018, is not open to review. We have been advised, with no disrespect to you sir, that the Speaker has no review powers over the said Motion, and, that the Speaker, the Clerk and the National Assembly are `functus officio’ in respect of and in relation to the said Motion. Furthermore, in our humble opinion, Standing Orders 26(e) precludes any effort to rescind a resolution on a question already decided on in the same Session,” Teixeira wrote.
Government announced on Sunday, its intention to send a legal brief to Scotland outlining the consequences of the vote. Following a `yes’ vote from former government MP Charrandas Persaud, Scotland had ruled that the motion was carried, 33 votes to 32.
Attorney General Basil Williams on Monday, revealed that the document was sent to Scotland on Sunday night but he could not say if government was likely to get a response before today’s sitting. Based on this newspaper’s checks yesterday, Scotland has not yet responded.
The AG told members of the media that the Legal Memorandum that was sent to Scotland sets out the legal issues that “we wish for him to consider.” The content of the document was leaked to the press on Saturday.
Williams had said that the government is seeking to determine six issues: “Whether 33 votes in favour of the motion of noconfidence amounted to a majority of all elected members in accordance with Article 106 (6) of the Constitution?; Whether Resolution 101 (the motion) is constitutional and effective and passed in accordance Article 106 (6) of the Constitution?; Whether Mr Charrandas Persaud was disqualified to vote as an elected member of the National Assembly?; Whether the Speaker can reverse the ruling that the no-confidence motion was carried?; What is the effect of the sub judice rule should the Speaker’s ruling be legally challenged in the Courts? and whether the Speaker’s ruling on the vote can be nullified by the Courts?”
Article 106(6) provides that the “Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of the majority of all elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.”
Williams argued that with regards to issues one and two, 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 said before adding that while the National Assembly comprises 65 members, mathematically, half of all the elected members of the current National Assembly would result in a fraction
of 32.5.
With regards to issue three, which addresses citizenship, Williams said that as a citizen of both Guyana and Canada, “Mr Persaud is disqualified to be an elected member of the National Assembly pursuant to Article 155 (1) (a) of the Constitution.”
Teixeira, in her letter, reminded Scotland that he had ruled that the motion was carried and passed. Added to that, by letter dated 24th December, 2018, the Clerk of the National Assembly duly informed Jagdeo that the motion of no-confidence against the government was considered and passed by a vote of 33 in favour and 32 against, she said.
She also reminded that on the night of December 21, 2018, Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo at a press conference held in the Parliament Buildings, conceded that the no-confidence motion had passed. He had stated that “options available are dictated by the Constitution Article 106 (6) and (7) which states that the government will resign and hold elections within three months,” Teixeira wrote.
She also made reference to comments by President David Granger that government accepted the ruling and will do everything to facilitate the smooth functioning of the elections.
She said that following those official statements, civil society organisations such as the Private Sector Commission, the Guyana Trades Union Congress, the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana, Transparency Institute of Guyana Inc, and the Guyana Bar Association came out in support of the constitutional provisions and called on the government and opposition to respect and uphold the Constitution.
“As Your Honour is aware, in accordance with Article 106(6) of the Constitution of the CoOperative Republic of Guyana, the Cabinet, including the President shall resign upon the passing of a No Confidence Motion. Consequently, it is not competent for the Government to move, nor participate in, a sitting of the National Assembly, otherwise than to give effect, if required, to the letter and spirit of Article 106(7) of the Constitution,” Teixeira wrote.
Article 106(7) provides that, “Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine, and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the elections.”
When this newspaper checked the Parliament’s website, there was no indication that today’s sitting was deferred. The order paper which outlined the business for the sitting remains posted on the website and according to the information this newspaper received, the sitting will be held today as planned.