Appeal Court to hear arguments next Friday on applications to stay confidence rulings
The Court of Appeal is due to commence hearing arguments next Friday on applications for stays of the High Court judgments validating passage of the no-confidence motion against government.
The hearing will be held one day after the constitutional three-month period for holding of elections following the December 21st passage of the motion against government expires.
The state, through Attorney General Basil Williams, will also be presenting arguments on its application for a conservatory order preserving the status quo ante that the President, Cabinet and all Ministers of the Government remain in office until the hearing and determination of appeals of the High Court judgments rendered by acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire.
Also slated to commence next Friday before Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud are the arguments in a summons filed by private citizen Compton Reid for similar interlocutory orders in relation to the decision of the acting Chief Justice that the vote of government Member of Parliament (MP) Charrandass Persaud on the motion was valid even though he was disqualified from being a parliamentarian given that he had Canadian citizenship.
The timelines were set during an in-chambers hearing yesterday morning before Justice Persaud.
Reid has since filed an appeal that is set to come up for hearing on March 20th before the Full Bench of the appellate court comprising acting Chancellor Yonette CummingsEdwards, Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Justice Persaud.
Following the in-chambers hearing before Justice Persaud yesterday, attorney and leader of the National Independent Party Saphier Husain, informed members of the media that he had been allowed to appear amicus in the proceedings to advance his contention that when the constitution refers to the holding of elections, it is at all material times referring to “credible elections.”
He referenced the announcement made by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) of its inability to hold credible elections before March 21st, citing, among other things, its need for funds and house-to-house registration in a bid to sanitise the current voters’ list.
The opposition has accused GECOM and the government of deliberately making excuses not to hold elections within the threemonth period. They have argued that the voters’ list is still valid since its expires on April 30th, while pointing out that if the Commission needs funds, this can be accessed from the Contingency Fund, which caters to any funding needs it may have.
In the High Court, Justice George-Wiltshire had denied an application made by Husain to be added as a party to the proceedings, stating that it did not met the “threshold” for him to be added as a party in the matter.
The appeals filed by Williams are also to challenge the judgments handed down by the Chief Justice. Those matters relate to actions brought by Williams against Speaker Dr. Barton Scotland, Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo by whom the motion was sponsored and chartered accountant Christopher Ram, who has been arguing that Cabinet and President ought to have resigned following the passage of the motion.
Ram has been contending that in accordance with Article 106 (6) of the Constitution, Cabinet ought to have already resigned. The government on the other hand is contending that having regard to Article 106 (7), its status quo ante is to remain until such time as a new President is sworn in.
Article 106 (6) states, “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.”
Article 106 (7) adds, “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 an election.”
The vote from Charrandass Persaud in favour of a PPP/C-sponsored no-confidence motion against the APNU+AFC administration tipped the scales 33 to 32 in its favour. Consequently, Scotland ruled that the motion was carried. Government accepted the ruling but subsequently asked him to reconsider and reverse it. However, Scotland declined and indicated that the court should be approached for redress.
In her January 31st judgment, the Chief Justice ruled that the 33 votes in favour of the motion constituted the needed majority and should have triggered the immediate resignation of the Cabinet, including the President.
Government’s position has since been that the
incorrect formula had been utilised on December 21st for calculating the votes to validate passage of the motion, which it contends lacked the needed majority of elected parliamentarians. Its argument has since been that in Guyana’s 65-member House, half would result in a fraction of 32.5. If it is to be rounded to the next whole number, that figure will be 33 and in accordance with the practice and the application of the meaning of majority, one has to be added to calculate not just a simple majority but an absolute majority, which it contends is the majority needed.
Against this background, lawyers for the state have argued that the motion would have required 34 and not 33 votes for it to have been declared carried.
Government has said that it plans to take the matter all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice.