Chris Ram petitions High Court to declare no-confidence motion properly passed -says matter should be heard urgently to avoid Constitutional crisis

Jan 09, 2019 News

---

 

One day after the Government filed a court action challenging the vote count on the no-confidence motion, Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram, by way of constitutional proceedings, is asking the court for a declaration that the no-confidence motion was properly, validly and lawfully passed by the National Assembly on December 21, 2018.
In the proceedings which were filed yesterday Attorney General Basil Williams and Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo have been listed as the Respondents. In the Fixed Date Application (FDA), Ram is seeking relief under the Constitution of Guyana for the court to grant several declarations.
The FDA was filed by Attorney-at-Law Kamal Ramkarran on behalf of Ram.
Ram is asking for a declaration that the passage of the no confidence motion requires the resignation of the Cabinet including the President with all convenient speed.
Ram wants the court to declare that the government comprising 33 elected members of the National Assembly coming from the coalition between A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance for Change (AFC) elected at elections in 2015, excluding the Cabinet including the President who shall resign with all convenient speed, shall remain in office until after the President takes the oath of office after elections to be held within 90 days from December 21, 2018 or within such extended period as the National Assembly shall determine by resolution support by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all elected members.
At the same time, Ram also wants a declaration that the passage of the motion requires that national and regional elections be held no later than Thursday, March 21, 2019, that date being the ninetieth day from December 21, 2018.

The applicant further seeks an order that at all times prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules of 2016 be abridged as necessary in order that these proceedings be dealt with an determines on the shortest possible time as being of the most urgent nature.
Ram said he has several grounds for the application which includes that on December 21, 2018, on a vote of all elected members of the National Assembly, the government was defeated on a vote of confidence brought on a motion by the Leader of the Opposition, which was passed with 33 votes in favour and 32 against.
Ram argues that under Article 106 (6) of the Constitution of Guyana the Cabinet including the President, has to resign if the Government is defeated on a vote of no confidence.
According to Ram, “Section 39 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, which is specifically applicable to constitutional interpretation by virtue of Article 232 (9) of the Constitution (of Guyana) provides that where no time is prescribed or allowed in a written law within which anything shall be done, such thing shall be done with all convenient time.”
It is Ram’s argument that it has been 18 days since the defeat of the Government and neither the President nor Cabinet has expressed an intention to resign and no date prior to or on March 21, 2019, has been fixed for national and regional nor has a resolution supported by no less than two-thirds of the National Assembly determined that elections should be held within a longer period.
In his affidavit in support, Ram said that he is aware that several arguments have been made in support of the contention that the motion on the vote of confidence was not passed. Among them, Ram pointed out, is that as a result of the use of the words “the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly”, pursuant to Article 106 (60 of the Constitution, the motion required 34 and not 33 notes to pass.
And further, that expelled Alliance for Change (AFC) member Charrandass Persaud, an elected member of the National Assembly on the Government list who voted in favour of the passage of the motion, is a citizen of Canada, and as a result, was not entitled to vote at the National Assembly.
It is Ram’s belief that “both on a grammatical and ordinary meaning of the words, “the vote of a majority of all elected members of the National Assembly” in article 106 (6) of the Constitution as well as on a technical meaning of the words in the general context of the Constitution, the votes of 33 members of the National Assembly constitutes of a majority of all the elected members.”
Ram contends that motions and Bills brought in the National Assembly have from time immemorial passed on a majority of the votes of 33 members of the 65 members of the National Assembly.
In the affidavit, Ram said that he is aware that the National Assembly between 2011 and 2015 matters brought by the Government were defeated by the Opposition which held a majority of 33 members and between that same period, matters brought by the Government were passed on the government’s majority of 33 members.
According to Ram, “I am advised by Attorney-at-Law and I verily believe that even if it were proven that Charrandass Persaud were a citizen of Canada and established that such citizenship disqualified him from membership of the National Assembly, the fact that he made a subscribed before the National Assembly to the oath of office in accordance of Article 167 of the Constitution meant that he was validly elected as a member of the National Assembly and a later declaration by a court that he was not entitled to be elected as a member cannot, in accordance with Article 165 (2) of the Constitution, invalidate any proceedings in the National Assembly, including the passage of the motion.”
The Applicant further contends that even if it were proven that Persaud were a citizen of Canada and established that such citizenship disqualifies him from membership of the National Assembly, Article 158 of the Constitution provides for the penalty where a person sits or votes in the National Assembly knowing or having reasonable ground for knowing that he is not entitled to do so.
Ram is asking for a quick resolution to the matter since it is one of national importance.
He said, “It is my application that all timelines be abridged as necessary in order that the proceedings can be determined as a matter of utmost priority so as to prevent the country from suffering the dire effects which can arise from a constitutional crisis and the ensuing of chaos, confusion and uncertainty.”
This matter comes up for hearing on Tuesday, January 15, before Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George.

---

---