Charrandass vote at centre as lawyers face-off at CCJ

May 10, 2019 News

---

 

Charrandass Persaud’s conscience vote against the government came under the microscope yesterday as lawyers involved in the no-confidence appeal against the government faced off at the Caribbean Court of Justice in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.
The consolidated hearings for the cases involving Christopher Ram, Attorney General Basil Williams, Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo, and Joseph Harmon, Speaker of the National Assembly Dr. Barton Scotland, Charrandass Persaud and Compton Herbert Reid garnered much attention from Guyanese at home and abroad.
Many tuned in, as the matter was live streamed via the CCJ website.
The matters have been closely watched since it could result in an early general election. In fact, yesterday’s hearing saw the attendance of at least five Ministers of Government and supporters from each side of the House.
On December 21, last, 33 of the 65 Members of the National Assembly of Guyana voted in favour of a no-confidence motion which meant that the President and Ministers of Government should resign and that elections must be held within three months.
However, the Government later claimed that 34 votes were required and that one of the members who voted in favour of the motion, Mr. Charrandass Persaud, was ineligible to vote because he held dual citizenship.
When the matter came before the Chief Justice in the High Court, she ruled that only 33 votes were required. However, on appeal to the Court of Appeal, it was held that 34 votes were required. The matter is now before the CCJ for final determination.
Persaud, a former member of the Alliance For Change (AFC); an arm of the ruling Coalition, had voted against his own party on December 21, last. The former Parliamentarian and Attorney-at-law had been accused of selling out his own party for a few pieces of silver.
He had however denied the claims declaring instead that he voted in keeping with his conscience. The former MP claimed that he was forced to stand up for what is right in the face of the arm of Government, the AFC, which had become a group of “yes men”.
However, as attorneys involved in the case presented their arguments before a panel of five CCJ judges yesterday, the questions surrounding Persaud’s right to vote in accordance with his conscience became a subject of discussion.
Placing the issue in the spotlight, former Attorney General of Belize, Eamon Courtaney, who is representing the Government side in the cases, stressed that Persaud’s vote was invalidated on grounds of Guyana’s “very strong anti- defection provision.”
The attorney argued that the no-confidence motion was invalid because Guyana’s constitution prohibits parliamentarians from being disloyal to the party’s list of candidates. In support of his contention, Courtenay, cited Article 156(3) of the Constitution, which was amended in 2007 to essentially bar Parliamentarians from crossing the floor.
According to the attorney, the rule was placed there, as a reminder to Parliamentarians on each side of the House of how they got there, in the first place.
Courtenay noted Persaud, being an Attorney-at-law, was well aware of the Article and its provisions.
The lawyer declared that the rules provide for a disgruntled member of the party to declare in writing to the Speaker or to the representative of the list from which his / her name was extracted that he or she will not support the list from which his or her name was extracted.
He explained that rules essentially state that each member should make his or her contention known before it reaches the Parliament. He was adamant that the Article prohibits Parliamentarians from voting in accordance with their own convictions; they must remain within party lines.
However, Justice Adrian Saunders, President of the CCJ, noted that the anti-defection legislation has serious and far reaching effect in that it hinges on Parliamentarians right to make a choice according to own belief, which is also protected by the Constitution.
The CCJ President warned the attorney that his arguments were treading on serious grounds.
The Judge quipped that MPs should not be limited to what their Party’s policies and beliefs. If it is so, then what is the use of a debate.
“If the Article tampers with the value of MPs right to vote in the House, it reduces the Parliamentary proceedings to a charade.”
Continuing the line of argument, the lawyer held that the only way the government can be toppled by a no confidence vote, is in the case where an arm of the Coalition Government votes against the ruling administration.
He declared that the government cannot remain in power if it does not have the confidence and the loyalty of its partner.
The Senior Counsel had previously noted that Persaud was a serial violator of the constitution in that he knew that he held dual citizenship and yet he took a seat in parliament.
The lawyer noted that Persaud not only violated the law but acted criminally when he made the declaration that he was not a citizen of another country.
Mr. Persaud being an Attorney -at -law knew that that Article 155 of the Constitution prohibits dual citizens from sitting in House. Not only did he declare falsely but he travelled on his Canadian passport before and after making that declaration.
The former Attorney General was at the time debunking claims by Opposition lead Counsel Douglas Mendes S.C that Persaud’s vote was validly passed even if he was not validly a member of National Assembly.
Applied to Mr. Persaud ‘s situation even if this Court were to find that he was invalidly elected or he is to be treated as having vacated his seat at some undefined date prior to December 21, 2018, his vote in favour of the motion is to treated as valid under the de facto doctrine.
Arguing on the point of a majority vote, Mendes noted that the Attorney General Basil Williams accepts that the ordinary and legal meaning of the word majority is a number greater than half; that concession ought to lead to a shift in determination of this appeal.
Mendes added that half of 65 is 32.5; a number higher than 32.5 is 33. He stressed that Williams spoke about absolute and simple majority. Those phrases are nowhere found in Guyana’s Constitution. He said that those words were simply injected into the arguments to suit the government’s position.
He held that 33 is the majority of 65; therefore, Guyana’s Court of Appeal was wrong to hold otherwise.
In keeping with his submission that the no- confidence motion was validly passed, Mendes who is representing Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, called on the CCJ to issue an order to hold general elections in the shortest possible time.
“We can’t turn the clock back but in determining what orders to make, we have to bear in mind that we are on borrowed time and so any further time that my learned friend wishes to borrow will have to be kept to the absolute minimum,” he said.
The matter is being presented before CCJ Judges, Adrian Saunders, Winston Anderson, Maureen Ragnauth-Lee, Jacob Witt, and David Hayton.
It is expected to continue today at 9:00 am.

---

---