Govt, Ram debate majority vote for passage of no-confidence motion

Jan 24, 2019 News

---

 

Majority or absolute majority! This was the contention of Attorney General Basil Williams and Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram as they addressed the court on several issues relating to the passage of the no-confidence motion against the Coalition Government on December 21, 2018 in the National Assembly.
The lengthy back and forth debates were before Chief Justice Roxane George at the High Court in Georgetown.
Those issues came about after Ram, through his Attorney-at-Law Kamal Ramkarran, filed an action asking the court to, among other things, declare that the no-confidence motion was properly passed and that the President including Cabinet must resign, with all convenient speed and elections held by March 21—three months after the passage of the motion as prescribed by the Constitution of Guyana.
In arguing against Ram’s contention, Williams maintained that governance must continue. His basis for this is that the no-confidence motion was not validly passed as a vote of absolute majority was not obtained. It is Williams’s contention that the framers of the Constitution could not have intended for government to be defeated by a majority but rather an absolute majority of all members present.
In all the circumstances, the government maintains that 34 votes were needed for the no-confidence motion to be carried. However, Ramkarran submitted that the government was defeated on a vote of no confidence brought by the Leader of the Opposition, which was passed with 33 votes in favour and 32 against.
In support of this, Ramkarran cited Article 106 (6) of the Constitution of Guyana which states, “The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected
members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.”
Further Ramkarran states that Article 106 (7) outlines, “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.”
He said that the issue of when cabinet should resign is delineated in 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), which 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.”
According to Ramkarran, these means that while government remains in office, there is simply no one directing Government collectively, referencing Articles 106 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, which he says details the makeup of cabinet.
The lawyer submitted that the passage of the no-confidence motion means that although the President must resign, he still performs others function as mandated by Article 89 of the Constitution, one being, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
As it relates to ministers, Ramkarran said that will also remain in office but cannot direct and control government.
Asked by Chief Justice Roxane George to expound on this contention, he stated that this means that the Minister cannot sign off on contract, or put legislation in place, among other things.
According to him, in such a case, the various ministries are supposed to be run by Permanent Secretaries. He said that parliament and the judiciary are independent bodies.
Probed by the Chief Justice to outline what will be the function of government in such a case, Ramkarran said that it will perform essential functions like defending the country if Venezuela or attacks or giving monies to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) for elections.
However, Williams argued that Ram failed to examine Articles 106 (6) together with Articles 106 (7) collectively. If he had done that, Williams added, that Ram would have recognized that cabinet and government are used interchangeably.

Stressing that the vote on the no-confidence motion was illegal, Williams said that the ordinary and legal meaning of a majority is a number greater than half.
And that according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary (1828), “majority rule” is defined as, “A political principle providing that a majority usually constituted by fifty percent plus one of an organized group will have the power to make decisions binding upon the whole.”
This definition of majority, Williams contends is applied in No Confidence Cases to both even and uneven numbers Parliaments and in the latter case where fractions are involved the rounding up of the fractions require at least a majority of two clear votes.
Williams submitted that the failure to obtain 34 or more votes breached Article 106(6) of the Constitution and was unlawful and the certification by the Speaker of the National Assembly Barton Scotland by issuing Resolution 101 could not be conclusive.
However, 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.”
The Chief Justice said that she will make a ruling in this matter on January 31.

---

---