No-confidence motion…Opposition files appeal at CCJ

Mar 27, 2019 News

A notice of appeal has been filed on behalf of Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo, through his lawyers, in relation to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Guyana on the No-Confidence Motion cases.
In the application filed by lead attorney Anil Nandlall, a request was made for Special Leave to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to consider the application.
The application is seeking an order treating the hearing of this application as urgent and a further order for an expedited hearing of the application.
Additionally, Nandlall is asking for an order directing that the hearing of the application for special leave to appeal be treated as the hearing of the appeal against the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal given on the 22nd March, 2019, in relation to the cases as well as an order setting aside and/or reversing the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal of Guyana given on the 22nd March, 2019 and a restoration of the decision of the acting Chief Justice made on the 31st January, 2019.
Further, the lawyer is asking for a declaration that Resolution of the National Assembly No. 101 is valid and effectual; and declaration that the no confidence motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition was validly passed on the 21st December, 2018 by a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly; a declaration that thirty-three (33) votes/members constitutes a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly within the meaning of Article 106 (6) of the Constitution of Guyana.
According to the application, the lawyer is anticipating that there will be costs in the Caribbean Court of Justice and such further or other order/s as may be just and appropriate.

Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo

Kaieteur news understands that there will be a Case Management Conference (CMC) conducted by the CCJ, on Friday morning (29th March 2019), with respect to this matter.
Last Friday, the Court of Appeal by a decision of 2-1 disagreed with the argument that 33 Members of Parliament (MPs) can effectively pass a No-Confidence Motion against the Government.
Appellate Judges, Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Dawn Gregory upheld the argument that an absolute majority is required for the passage of no-confidence motion against the Government.
The two Judges agreed an absolute majority in the context, calls for 34; not 33 votes of all elected members of the National Assembly.
Justice Rishi Persaud, on the other hand, disagreed. He ruled the no-confidence motion was validly passed by 33 to 32 votes. That decision was previously handed down by Chief Justice Roxane George at the High Court.
However, in her ruling, Justice Cummings-Edwards said the Chief Justice’s calculation of 33 votes was for a “simple majority.” She held that a no-confidence motion cannot be upheld using the same yardstick that is applied for the passage of ordinary legislation, since it results in much more grave circumstances — the toppling of a government.
Both Appellate Judges (Cummings-Edwards and Gregory) alluded to the submissions proffered by Queen’s Counsel (QC) Dr. Francis Alexis, a former Attorney General of Grenada, who has been hired by the Attorney General of Guyana, Basil Williams, to argue the government’s case at the Court of Appeal in relation to the no-confidence motion matters.
The Queen’s Counsel had amplified the arguments that were already raised at the High Court.
He insisted that there was a miscalculation of votes, and that in order for the motion to be passed, an “absolute majority” of all elected members was required.
According to him, in calculating the “absolute majority”, the 65 members of the National Assembly had to be divided by two, which would result in 32.5, but since the 0.5 represents half and there is no half-member, that number needs to rounded off to 33, and add one more, making the majority 34 –an absolute majority.
QC Alexis had also submitted, “But you can only round up if a fraction is the result. A fraction comes into the exercise. You cannot get away from that. A fraction is rounded up, not down. That’s why the fraction was rounded up in the case of Hughes v Rogers.”
He argued that the Chief Justice failed to apply this rule when arriving at a majority, since, in her judgment she explained that it was not required, given that it was an odd number House.
The longstanding jurist also argued that passing a no-confidence motion is not on the same level as passing ordinary laws, which would require a simple majority, that is, a majority of all elected members present and voting on a particular exercise.
Meanwhile in affirming the ruling by Chief Justice, Justice Rishi Persaud said, “With the greatest respect to Dr. Alexis, the formula of firstly dividing by half then rounding up to the nearest whole (number) plus 1 has no application here. It does not amount to logic and common sense where there is an uneven number of members, unless of course that specific formula is prescribed.”