March 12 set for hearing of appeal in no-confidence motion cases

Mar 02, 2019 News

---

Was the no-confidence motion validly passed in the National Assembly on December 21, 2018? Was it carried by a majority of all 65 members of the National Assembly? These questions emerge from two cases in relation to the no-confidence motion which the Court of Appeal will commence hearing on Tuesday, March 12 and again on Thursday, March 14 respectively.
Presiding over the cases are Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory.
The hearing dates were fixed yesterday when the matters of the Attorney General vs. Christopher Ram and the Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo; and the Attorney General vs. Dr. Barton Scotland, Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, and Mr. Joseph Harmon, a representative of A Party for National Unity (APNU), were called up.
The Records of Appeal in these two matters have already been filed with the registrar at the Court of Appeal.
In relation to the case of Attorney General vs. Christopher Ram and the Leader of the Opposition, Attorney General, Basil Williams was granted seven days to file skeletal arguments and serve them on Ram, who is being represented by Attorney-at-Law Komal Ramkarran, who asked for four days thereafter service to file skeletal arguments.
“My submissions are ready and I am prepared to argue. I will put in submissions by Monday (March 4),” Attorney-at-Law Anil Nandlall who is representing Jagdeo, told the court.
Roysdale Forde, Attorney-at-Law for Harmon, made a request for his client to join as a respondent in this case. But despite objections from Nandlall and Ramkarran, the Chancellor granted the request citing that the case is one of national importance. The parties will return to court on March 12, to present arguments.
Forde was granted three days from yesterday to lay over submissions. As it relates to the matter of the Attorney General vs. Dr. Barton Scotland, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, and Mr. Joseph Harmon, this comes up for hearing on March 14.
The court is yet to hear the matter of private citizen, Compton Reid vs. Scotland, expelled Alliance for Change (AFC) Member of Parliament, Charrandass Persaud, Harmon, Jagdeo and the Attorney General.
Records of appeal in this matter are still outstanding, and the Chancellor indicated that notices for hearing will be sent to the parties once the documents are received.
In this case, Chief Justice Roxane George, had declared that despite Persaud, who voted in favour of the no-confidence motion against the Coalition Government, is not qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly on the basis of dual citizenship by virtue of his allegiance to Canada, a foreign power. However, his dual citizenship does not invalidate his vote on the no-confidence motion.
The Chief Justice had made it clear that by swearing allegiance to another state, in accordance with Article 53 of the Constitution of Guyana, a dual citizen is not eligible to be elected to serve in the National Assembly. She stressed that this is applicable to other Members of Parliaments holding dual citizenship in the National Assembly.
Among other things, on January 31, last, the Chief Justice ruled that the No-Confidence Motion was validly passed since its resolution was carried by a majority of 33 to 32 elected members of the National Assembly, and this should have caused the immediate resignation of Cabinet, including the President, in accordance with Article 106 (7) of the Constitution of Guyana.
The, Government, however, maintains otherwise. Williams contends that the No-Confidence Motion was not validly passed since it needed the support of 34 members, which according to him, is an “absolute majority.”
Williams has since moved to the Court of Appeal where he is also requesting a Conservatory Order, preserving the previously existing state of affairs that the President, Cabinet and all Ministers of the Government remain in office until the hearing and determination of the appeal filed in regards to the judgments, and an interim stay of the Chief Justice’s decision.
However, at a hearing on Thursday, Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud said that he was not mindful of granting an interim stay as he would move to grant an expeditious decision after hearing the oral arguments in the applications.
In a summons requesting the stay, State Counsel Raeanna Clarke, said, “It is contended that the effect of the ruling of the Chief Justice that Cabinet ceased with immediate effect on the night of the no-confidence motion on 21st December 2018.
“This will mean that the government will be unable to introduce any financial bills for passage because, in accordance with Article 171 of the Constitution. These bills require the recommendation and or consent of the Cabinet signified by a minister.”
“In these circumstances, the government will be unable to fund the preparation and holding of elections by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) if the effect of the ruling of the Chief Justice is not stayed as prayed for herein.”
According to Clarke, “I am advised by my Attorneys-at-law and verily believe that the Conservatory order is necessary to preserve the status quo ante as the period for the hearing and determination of the matter may expire before that time prescribed in Article 106 (7) of the Constitution, which requires that the President and Government remain in office and hold elections within three months.”
Clarke further said, “That I will contend that the appeal has good prospects of success and the Honourable Court ought to grant a stay and a conservatory order in order to ensure that if the appeal is successful, it is not rendered nugatory.”
Clarke, in the affidavit, stated that the Court of Appeal has held that it has jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution of a declaratory judgment in matters that would affect the public interest.

 

---

---