Putting context to the no confidence motion

Jan 30, 2019 Letters

Dear Editor,

Upon the closing of the sitting of parliament on December 21, 2018, where a no confidence motion was declared passed by the Speaker of the House, and recorded by the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Speaker had said that he would deal with the consequences of “this motion” at the next sitting on January 3, 2019.
The Speaker (Dr. Scotland) is well learned in parliamentary affairs. This man writes a regular column (parliamentary corner) on the modus operandi of parliament in the papers on a regular basis.
Surely, Dr. Scotland would be aware that after the passing of a no confidence motion against the Government, it is no longer within his ambit to deal with the “consequences of this motion” because the motion kicks in Article 106 (6) and (7) of the Constitution.
We are all aware that the Coalition is no gentleman’s Government. The Coalition’s president and ministers, having sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, seem to have found the constitution as a stumbling block.
This is evidenced by the fact that the Chief Justice had on several occasions cited the president for violation of the constitution. Had they been in the gentleman’s mode they would have complied with article 106. 6 which calls for the resignation of the Cabinet and the President. Had that been done, there would not have been another sitting of parliament, except for resolution, in agreement with the opposition to extend the stipulated 90 days for election which Article 106.7 dictates must be done by a two-thirds majority of all the MP’s.
Dr. Scotland would have known that on the night of December 21, when he passed the motion. The fact that Dr. Scotland spoke of himself dealing “with the consequences of this motion”, places him in the forefront of the conspiracy theory of the Government, not to comply with the constitution.
Further, the Speaker of the House holding a sitting of parliament after the passing of the motion in the absence of the opposition should be considered public mischief, illegal, and all legislation passed on that day as null and void.
How does the Speaker justify the government passing Bills in parliament after the Government had fallen on a confidence motion? This is ludicrous! I would like to see Dr. Scotland explain this in his next missive in “Parliamentary corner”.
Dr. Scotland in his own jurisprudence passed the no confidence motion on December 21. Holding what should rightly be considered an illegal sitting of parliament on January 3, 2019, Dr. Scotland said that the powers vested in him as Speaker, he can undo the motion but he will not. How could he not know that if the Government had done the patriotic by following the requirements for a no confidence motion as stipulated by Article 106.6 and 106.7, December 21, 2018 could and should have been his last sitting as Speaker of the Assembly?
Had he been impartial, like Granger said when he appointed him, he would not have acted in contravention of the constitution by holding an illegal sitting of parliament. This mirrors the point that all appointees of the President without consensus, are simply creatures of the President and Government.

Rudolph Singh

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News