Crossing of floor act unconstitutional

Sep 05, 2015 Letters

Dear Editor,
Chief Justice Ian Chang recently ruled that the 2001 parliamentary amendments to the constitution are unconstitutional unless approved in a referendum.
It follows logically that any subsequent amendment to the constitution, unless approved in a referendum, is unconstitutional.
In 2007, both the PNC and PPP “amended the constitution” disallowing the crossing of the floor.
All the M.Ps from both the PNC and PPP voted for the amendment. The AFC M.Ps opposed the bill and made a compelling case why it should not have been approved.
The amendment bill was tabled and approved in 2007 as a result of the crossing of the floor by Rafael Trottman (PNC), Khemraj Ramjattan (PPP) and Sheila Holder (WPA) around 2005 leading to the formation of the AFC that contested the 2006 elections winning five seats. The two major parties collaborated to prevent such floor crossing that could impact on their support in the House.
Ramjattan and Trottman did not follow their party whip. The WPA was also not pleased that Holder was leaving her party to form the AFC. I was in the Assembly for the eloquent debate put up by Ramjattan, Trottman and Holder. No one from the PPP and PNC budged on the issue although several of them told me privately they opposed it. Even my friend Moses Nagamootoo was silent on the matter even though he privately opposed the bill.
He voted for the PPP/PNC bill that essentially disallows a “’conscience” vote on any issue. The bill is dictatorial in nature. It promotes absolute dictatorship.
If a M.P votes against a bill (against the party whip), he or she can be automatically replaced by the leader of the party (party’s list). Since my friends Ramjattan, Trottman, and Nagamootoo were against the crossing of the floor act in 2007, I expect them to introduce a bill now to remove (repeal) that amendment to the fraudulent constitution that was imposed on the population without a free and fair referendum.
Alternatively, voters can go to court as they did challenging the term limit law, to challenge the legality of the bill. And since Justice Chang has ruled that amendments to the constitution are null and void unless approved by the voters in a referendum, then the crossing of the floor act is “unconstitutional”.
Furthermore, since the learned Chief Justice has ruled that a referendum must be held to “legalize” the constitution or any amendments to it, and since no referendum was held to approve the Burnham constitution, then voters should challenge its constitutionality. It follows logically that the Burnham constitution is null and void.
Vishnu Bisram

Latest News

Crossing of floor act unconstitutional

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| February, 14th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Junior Jaguars hold Costa Rica to 2-2 draw, extend unbeaten streak in...

Harpy Eagles, WIA tussle end in draw

Rosignol Secondary dominates Region 5 edition of...

One Guyana Racing Rides with Pegasus Cup Champion...

Kennard Memorial Turf Club to stage traditional...

GBA assembles elite squad for 2025 Caribbean...

Features/Columnists

I don’t remember!

CARICOM Nations Should Respond Together To new U.S. Policies

Bharrat J – another try to redeem a brother

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Crossing of floor act unconstitutional

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| February, 14th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]