Govt. deemed illegal for failing to implement constitutional provisions with ‘all convenient speed’

Govt. deemed illegal for failing to implement constitutional provisions with ‘all convenient speed’ – Ramkarran

Jan 07, 2019 News

Former Speaker of the National Assembly, Ralph Ramkarran is calling on the Government to be more mindful of the Constitutional provisions which follow a no-confidence vote.
Ramkarran in a recent column cautioned the Executive of the illegality attached to the failure to observe the Constitution.
The former Speaker stated that “Article 106(6) states that the Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by a vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.
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 election.”

Former Speaker, Ralph Ramkarran

He noted nonetheless in what appeared to be a response to comments made by Second Vice President and Minister of Security, Khemraj Ramjattan that President David Granger and Cabinet are unlawfully seeking to hold unto office by not resigning.
Following the passage of the no-confidence vote which was passed in the National Assembly, Ramjattan had told the media that there has not been a resignation of the President or the Government nor will there be such a resignation. After failing in their efforts to have the no-confidence motion reviewed in the National Assembly a court case has been filed to set aside the vote. Government is challenging the vote on the grounds that Charrandass was invalid because he holds a Canadian passport. An order to stay the no confidence resolution is also being sought.
The columnist stressed however that until the resolution is declared by the court to have been unlawfully passed, it remains valid and binding.
Because Article 106(6) provides no time within which the resignation should take place, it should “be done with all convenient speed,” as provided by section 28 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act. Not yet having acted in compliance with Article 106(6) by resigning, the Cabinet including the President are unlawfully holding on to office, he said.
Meanwhile, the former Speaker said that the consideration would no doubt also be given to the right or power of a court to interrupt a constitutional process, set in train by a parliamentary motion, on which a vote was taken and deemed to have been carried.
“If the power exists, should it be exercised, ad interim, upon an allegation that is prima facie answerable by article 165(2) and in circumstances where the national applicant, the Cabinet, is committing a continuing wrong by not resigning?
“The question will no doubt be: How can a court allow a Cabinet to stay in office when the Constitution, a superior instrument to the court, by which the court is bound, says that it should resign?”

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News