Finance Minister Jordan has power to release funds for elections -Nandlall argues at no-confidence case appeal

Finance Minister Jordan has power to release funds for elections –Nandlall argues at no-confidence case appeal

Mar 14, 2019 News

Although the Cabinet seized to exit after the passage of the No-Confidence Motion on December 21, 2018 in the National Assembly, Finance Minister Winston Jordan still has the power to budget funds for the holding of general elections, even though the minister cannot go back in Parliament, argued former Attorney General Anil Nandlall.
During his submissions to the court, Nandlall explained that if Minister Jordan or a new minister is appointed by the President after the holding of elections that Minister will lay in Parliament a statement accounting for those monies budgeted for those elections.
Nandlall argued this, yesterday, when the Court of Appeal continued hearing arguments in the case of Attorney General v Christopher Ram, Minister of State Joseph Harmon, in his capacity as representative of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland, and Bharrat Jagdeo in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition.
The legal challenge stemmed from the passage of the No-Confidence Motion.
Hearing the appeal is Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards, and Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud.
The former Attorney General sought to dismiss previous arguments by Attorney General Basil Williams, who he said, is trying to create panic by painting the picture that the country will collapse if monies are not circulated, as a result of there no longer being Cabinet to approve funds.
According to him, Articles 218, 219 and 220 which speak to the withdrawal of monies from the Consolidated Fund of other public fund, when read consecutively, make provisions for monies to be withdrawn to offset the nation’s expenses.

Anil Nandlall

Advancing further arguments, Nandlall said that No-Confidence Motion is nothing new to Guyana’s Constitution and democracies around the globe. In fact, he said it is a permanent fixture in Commonwealth nations, including Guyana.
Now that the government has to resign in accordance with Article 106 (6) of the Constitution which reads, “The Cabinet, including the President, shall resign if the government is defeated by a vote of majority of all elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence,” its only function, Nandlall said, is to hold elections within three months from the passing of the No-Confidence Motion.
This, he said, is pursuant to Article 106 (7) of the Constitution of Guyana which reads, “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, and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the election.”
Nandlall supported a ruling of Chief Justice Roxane George that 33 is a majority of all 65 elected members of the National Assembly.
He explained that the 65-seat National Assembly was adopted from independence, and a vote of one over the other always constitutes a majority and has always been a majority in Guyana’s Parliament.
According to counsel, in her ruling the Chief Justice referenced that in 2014, the Government held 32 seats, while the Opposition which enjoyed a majority of 33 seats, and that combined Opposition laid a No-Confidence Motion. He said that then, the majority Opposition was able to pass Bills without the input of the minority government.
“They now come to burden your honours for you to come up with mathematical gymnastics that 33 is no longer the majority. If Charrandass Persaud, the problematic voter had not strayed from the flock, wouldn’t the motion have been defeated, or would we have needed another vote?” Nandlall submitted.
The appeal hearing continues this morning when Nandlall is expected to address the court on an issue raised by the Chancellor.