Nagamania comes back to haunt Guyana

Mar 27, 2019 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,

The decision of the appeal court to invalidate the NCM formerly upheld by the Chief Justice by a 2 to 1 majority decision, on the grounds that 34 votes and not 33, is a majority of 65, is the most shocking chapter of the saga of the NCM. After being laughed at by the entire nation, Moses Nagamotoo returned, as if from exile, to have the last laugh. Alas! No one could have envision the triumph of Nagamotoo ludicrous mathematical theory of “one half top up plus one” = to majority of 65. To think that this would have been propagated by two judges on a triumvir of the appellate court was defying to logic. But it happened! Memories of Freddie Kissoon mentioning of a waste land called Guyana comes to mind!
Despite the fact that nowhere in our constitution does the word absolute appeared before majority, QC Dr Francis Alexis, somehow managed to create some sort of telepathic or optical illusion to make the word “absolute“ appear before majority in Article 106 of the constitution, to resonate with two of the judges cerebrum.
Anil Nandlall contends that he had no clue that they could have lost the case on Maths. As a result no mathematician was retained by the PPP in their submissions. Albeit! The two judges did not find it necessary to consult expert advice before making their decision. The two judges seem to have concurred with Dr Alexis thesis that because of the gravity of the situation a simple majority was not enough to pass the motion and that an absolute majority was needed, bearing in mind the constitution is not enshrined with the words simple or absolute before the word majority in any instance.
Even simple logic seems to have been defied in this decision. It is obvious that our constitution framers instituted oddity of numbers of representatives of the people to avoid deadlock or equality around the middle of the odd number sixty five. Clearly! It had to be intended that a majority always had to exist on one side in all scenarios to avoid deadlock in governance structures. Hence a majority should exist at all times and that majority is intended to triumph in all scenarios, including a NCM. Had anything more been required, they (the framers) would have stated it. I always held the opinion that the law (constitution) is language. This decision reeks of dissent from that opinion.
Let’s do some math to see if we can recreate how the magic of Dr. Alexis worked! Sixty five divided by 2 equal to 32.5, bearing in mind that we now have two equal portions of 32.5. The argument suggests we cannot have half of a person, in progression, if we have to create whole numbers based on mathematical principles, after point 5, we have to go to the next whole number, bear in mind that there are two portions of 32.5 that has to be taken to 33 to constitute two halves of the national assembly on a presumed scenario before the NCM because the constitution states, “more than one half of the elected members of the national assembly.” In this scenario the total members of the national assembly goes to 66- totally unrealistic. Topping up one half would take the total member of the Assembly to 65.5. Naturally, the other half cannot be left languishing at 32.5 since their theory states that there is no half a person! How do we justify the creation of an extra person by the use of this formula?
Our constitution evolved from the British system where a precedent was created in 1979 when Margret Thatcher won a no confidence motion against the Govt. of James Callahamby’s one vote. Sadly! Two of the judges did not consider that precedent. The last chapter of this saga leads to the CCJ.

Rudolph Singh

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News