Lawyers file High Court submissions over no confidence motion

Jan 23, 2019 News

---

Attorney-at-Law Maxwell Edwards, who is representing the Attorney General has said that the Constitution should not be interpreted in a narrow and legalistic way.
Edwards was at the time responding to the case against the State by political commentator and attorney-at-law, Christopher Ram.
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 Fixed Date Application (FDA), Ram is seeking relief under the Constitution of Guyana for the court to grant several declarations.

He 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 determined in 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.”

But Edwards, in his rebuttal, said Ram has completely misconstrued the requirement of Article 106 (7) which clarifies that the resignation is contingent upon the dissolution of Parliament before the holding of General and Regional Elections. It was pointed out that Article 106 (7) states that the government shall resign “after the President takes the oath of office following the election.”
“The First Named Respondent rejects the contention of a caretaker government as alleged by the Applicant in his Submissions. It is submitted that the Resolution of Parliament upon which the Applicant relies was not validly passed by an absolute majority of all the elected members within the meaning of Article 106 (6) so as to constitute a valid defeat of the government upon a vote of confidence,” Edwards argued.
He said that the argument is “untenable,” contending that Ram fell into error by predicating his case on the contention that Article 106 (6) required a simple majority.
In similar cases filed against the government, Attorney–at–law Anil Nandlall in his representation of the leader of the opposition, noted that questions about the validity of Charrandas Persaud vote on the basis of his dual citizenship should be rendered null and void.
“Perhaps a convenient point to begin is Article 163 of the Constitution. It is this article that confers upon this Honourable Court the exclusive jurisdiction to determine a number of questions set out in the said article.
In his submissions, Nandlall noted that it cannot be disputed that the Persaud was elected to sit in the National Assembly pursuant to elections held under Articles 60 and 160 of the Constitution as referred to by Article 163(5) of the Constitution.
“It is submitted that Parliament has indeed made provisions to which Article 163(4) of the Constitution makes reference. That provision manifests itself in the form of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act and National Assembly (Validity) of Elections Rules.
It is further submitted that this Honourable Court’s jurisdiction to determine any question regarding the qualification of any member of the National Assembly can only be done in the manner prescribed by Article 163 of the Constitution, that is to say, in accordance with the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act and the accompanying rules.”

---

---