Possible judicial review on No-Confidence motion

Oct 02, 2014 News

---

It would be “unconstitutional and illegal for the CJ to intervene” – Greenidge

“If Nandlall and “his associates” are planning to degrade the Constitution with the assistance of the Judiciary, and to further oppress the opposition they should be afraid, very afraid because they will not have the protection of the law.”

Several options on how government could possibly frustrate or stall the upcoming debate over the unprecedented No-Confidence motion have begun to surface in the political sphere.

The alleged $30M each buy-out of three opposition Parliamentarians, the probable call for a judicial review and the laying of a confidence motion by the government are all options that have been floating around.
However, as it relates to the buy-out of parliamentarians, Carl Greenidge, the financial point man of the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) says that he believes that this is “merely political gamesmanship, rather than a serious allegation.”
In giving his comments on the matter, Greenidge reminded that the 33 seats held by the parliamentary opposition comprise two political parties so anyone seeking to derail the process could chose members of either party to bribe. He said that there can be no presumption that the APNU has less committed Members of Parliament (MP) than the Alliance For Change (AFC).
Greenidge asserted that each party has a team in the National Assembly and it is the responsibility of the respective leaders to keep their MPs in line.  He opined that a serious breach such as the acceptance of a bribe or failure to adhere to the party line is a reflection on the party’s leadership capacity and affects its standing amongst his MPs and in the eyes of the Government.
“It goes without saying that anyone guilty of such behavior should be removed from the ranks of MPs. They would be removed anywhere else. I think that although the statement is probably about political gamesmanship, this is a wakeup call for the leadership,” the former finance minster added.
As it relates to government’s options in the face of the No-Confidence motion: the judicial review and the laying of the no-confidence motion, Greenidge said that it is simply absurd.
He believes that the No-Confidence motion is not a law examination or an exercise of legislative competence which is subject to judicial review anywhere.
“Of course, we have a government in office which believes that it has a God-given right to be in office and no doubt they will use any avenue to avoid being thrown out of office. I think that they need to bear in mind that serious breaches of the Constitution, even if affected by the device of procrastination leaves the public and electorate with the right to remove a government by extra-parliamentary means. The PPP General Secretary, Clement Rohee needs to take note of that,” Greenidge added.
The Opposition member said that if the Constitution is being breached by the government for the past 20 years, then there is nothing more for the parties to discuss. He said that President Donald Ramotar has to respect the Constitution “and get on with it.”
Greenidge added that the refusal by government to operate within the confines of the law leaves the opposition with no option but to remove it from office. He spotlighted the fact that “talks between the opposition and the government have yielded not a single tangible positive result.”
Legal luminaries have said that while the political opposition brought a no-confidence motion, which is premised on the belief that the powers in charge are no longer fit to run the country, the government has the option of bringing a confidence motion to the National Assembly. A confidence motion is a vote of approval that the government can certainly run the affairs of the country effectively and efficiently.
Greenidge in light of this said, “Confidence and no-confidence motions mean nothing of the sort. They are no more than the title suggests but the context matters in that they relate to specific Bills before the Assembly…and if the Government for some reason puts a general confidence motion to the House and it is defeated, the Government will still be obliged to resign.”
The APNU Parliamentarian said that he has no doubt that based on the comments he has received from the Attorney General, the government does not have in mind going to the Courts as it would be “unconstitutional and illegal for the Chief Justice (CJ) to intervene.”
He added, “It has never been done in any of the jurisdictions with which we share legal frameworks. I have pointed out before that our Constitution does not require a reason to be given for the approval of a no-confidence vote.”
Greenidge said that the media should not give Nandlall help in his bid to undermine the Constitution once again, by suggesting that the issue that has to be established is that the government is doing a good job. In fact, he posits that the only issue involved in a confidence and no-confidence vote is whether the majority of the MPs are prepared to support the government. He stressed that once they are not, the government has to resign.
“I keep reminding the public that the CJ is not the whole judiciary and he cannot replace the Assembly by his office. If a government cannot command a majority vote in the Assembly it would be foolish for the CJ or the courts to take steps to neutralize that because a majority would be required to pass any legislation including the budgets and financial papers. Having ignored the decision of the Assembly what power would the courts have to approve expenditure or Bills in defiance of an elected majority? The Courts have no such power.
I cannot therefore agree with this talk of a post-2015 election resulting from actions of the courts. Let me make it clear, if a no-confidence vote is passed (or what amounts to the same thing, a confidence vote is defeated) in October, any Cabinet purporting to be in office after January would be illegal, unless there have been general elections. Without the latter, a populace is entitled to remove the so-called government by any means at its disposal. The removal of the Judiciary which facilitates this would be understandable because it would not have upheld the Constitution,” The Shadow finance minister stated.
He said this is the recommendation he will be making to the opposition parties. In other words, he said that if Nandlall and “his associates” are planning to degrade the Constitution with the assistance of the Judiciary, and to further oppress the opposition “they should be afraid, very afraid because they will not have the protection of the law.”
Greenidge opined that citizens would have a right to extra-parliamentary action. In such circumstances, he said that there can be no promise of peaceful protest and the PPP would have no right to make such a demand.
Nandlall was asked recently whether the government has considered using either of the two moves when the National Assembly comes out of recess in October. Nandlall responded “I will comment on our moves, at the opportune time.”
However, a government official has confirmed that talks have already begun as to how the government plans to effectively deal with the political opposition’s No-Confidence motion. Kaieteur News was also told that it is very likely that government will lay a confidence motion and if it is defeated it will resort to “plan B”—a call for a judicial review.

---

---