Jaipaul Sharma: No such thing as a no-confidence motion in the Constitution

Jan 27, 2019 News

A sitting minister of the Government is convinced that the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland, erred by allowing a motion of no-confidence to be debated on December 21st.
That motion was carried after Charrandass Persaud, an Alliance For Change (AFC) parliamentarian said yes, and has since created headaches for the Coalition Government, including early elections.
According to Minister within the Ministry of Finance, Jaipaul Sharma, the Speaker erred because the Constitution never catered for a no-confidence motion but rather a confidence motion.

Minister Jaipaul Sharma

“I want to show you that there is a definition for a Vote of Confidence and it must be brought by the government.”
According to Article 106 (6), on the issue of the motion, “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.”
Yesterday, the minister, who is representing the Justice For All Party (JFAP) on the Coalition Government, said during his Voice of the People programme that Article 106 was placed in the Constitution by Amendment 17/2000 during the constitutional reform process.

“So it was not in the original 1980 Constitution so it was not properly thought out but it makes perfect sense because in protecting the sitting government…”
“The Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, while he was president was the one who assented to the amendment but he used it incorrectly and the Speaker accepted it.”
The vote by MP Persaud has raised questions over the interpretations of the Constitution.
Issues of dual citizenship and the way MPs are supposed to vote are now being debated.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News