The defeat of a govt. by a no-confidence vote should not be left to judicial interpretation

Mar 25, 2019 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,
There is a popular saying that ‘the law is an ass’. The recent ruling by the Appeal Court overturning the decision of the Chief Justice regarding the validity of the No-confidence vote has reinforced such perceptions among a significant body of opinion both within and outside of the legal fraternity.
Part of the difficulty has to do with the interpretation of language in the Constitution, which can be subjected to all kinds of nuances to validate or invalidate a particular viewpoint. Interestingly, the debate over a ‘simple’ majority as opposed to an ‘absolute’ majority has in a way introduced a new dimension in the interpretation of the Constitution unless the Caribbean Court of Justice rules otherwise. This decision, when taken in conjunction with the ruling on dual citizenship could redefine the governance structure of our society.
This is why it is so important that something as fundamental as the defeat of a government on a no-confidence vote should be written in the Constitution in a way that ought not to be left to judicial interpretation. The language should be unambiguous and unmistakably clear for all to comprehend.
I have no claim to being an expert on constitutional law, but my understanding of the Constitution is that upon the passage of a majority of all members of the National Assembly, the motion is carried and the government shall immediately resign and within three months hold new elections. This to my mind appears clear enough and ought not from a rational and logical interpretation be a matter for dispute. There is no mention of ‘simple’ or ‘absolute’ majority with respect to this particular piece of legislation. The Appeal Court, however, has an entirely different understanding.
It is my respectful view than an error of judgment was made in overturning the decision of the Chief Justice regarding the validity of the no-confidence vote. Judges, it has to be said, are not immune from errors in judgment and it is precisely for this reason that there is recourse to a higher court, in our case the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
It is interesting to see how this issue will be dealt with at the Caribbean Court of Justice. The Opposition Leader has already signalled his intention to contest the decision and in all likelihood the matter will be dealt with expeditiously having regard to the nature of the case. The Government of Guyana may see this decision as a victory but will be counterproductive from a governance perspective to behave as if it is business as usual. Since the matter still remains inconclusive insofar as the judicial process is concerned, preparations for the holding of elections within the shortest possible time as indicated by President Granger should not be put on hold and GECOM should be so advised. The constitutional constraints imposed earlier with respect to its legality have for all practical purposes now temporarily lifted pending a ruling by the CCJ.
This is no time for triumphalism on the part of anyone regardless on whichever side he or she may stand on the political divide. Regardless of how the CCJ rules, the elections fever has already gripped the masses, and the sooner we get it over, the better it will be for the good of this country of ours.
Hydar Ally

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News