Appeal Court invalidates no-confidence vote
(March 22, 2019)
By a majority decision, the Appeal Court has invalidated the passage of the no-confidence motion against the government, saying that an “absolute majority” of 34 votes were needed.
Acting Chancellor and Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory disagreed with an earlier ruling by acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire, who upheld the validity of the passage of the motion. Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud, in a dissenting ruling, upheld the Chief Justice’s ruling on the motion.
The ruling is a reprieve for the government, which has been pressured by the parliamentary opposition PPP/C for the holding of new elections within a threemonth deadline in keeping with Article 106 of the constitution.
(July 12, 2019)
(Caribbean Court of Justice) Port of Spain, Trinidad. The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) today issued consequential declarations and orders in two sets of cases from Guyana. The cases have to do with the appointment of the Chairman of the Guyana Election Commission ( GECOM) and a no- confidence vote passed last December in the Guyana National Assembly. On the first case, the CCJ urged that, as a matter of the greatest public importance, “the President and the Leader of the Opposition should, as soon as possible, embark upon and conclude the process of appointing a new GECOM Chairman.” Since the Court’s decision, the Chairman of GECOM voluntarily submitted his resignation.
Regarding the consolidated matters concerning the no-confidence motion, the CCJ noted that there is clear guidance in Article 106 of Guyana’s Constitution on what should happen next. The Court stated, “upon the passage of a vote of no confidence, the Article requires the resignation of the Cabinet including the President. The Article goes on to state, among other things, that notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and that an election shall be held “within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than twothirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine”.
The Court noted that the filing of the court proceedings in January, challenging the validity of the no- confidence vote, effectively placed matters on pause. The Court reminded, however, that it had rendered its decision on 18 June 2019. As to the precise orders it should make, the CCJ cautioned, however, that it is not, “the role of the Court to establish a date on, or by which, the elections must be held”. Article 106 is clear and it should be followed. The CCJ did express the view that it is expected that the Government will continue as a caretaker for the affairs of the county but that in light of its caretaker role it should be restrained in the use of its legal authority.
In the matter concerning the GECOM Chairman, the CCJ noted that since the Chairman in question had already demitted office, it was unnecessary to issue any orders on this point. However, it was the Court’s view that the appointment process of a new Chairman should be embarked upon with “the utmost urgency” in light of the CCJ’s decision in the no-confidence motion cases which has triggered the need for fresh general elections.