Dissecting article 156-3. The law is language, not assumptions or inferences!

May 13, 2019 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,
As the Country awaits the decision from the CCJ, there is a lot to ponder on the complexity of our constitution and the willingness of politicians to construe its language to benefit their narrow-minded interest.
The use of article 156-3 by government lawyers in their attempt to negate Charrandass’ vote was based on assumption and inference. The government lawyers made a valiant attempt to negate Article 9 of our constitution which states, “Sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives and the democratic organs established by or under this Constitution.”
The representatives of the people spoken of at article 9 are undoubtedly the parliamentarians. From article 9 to 155, the representatives of the people has been manipulated into the representative of the “ list” or political party.
The Law is language! Article 156-3 states. A member of the National Assembly elected on a list shall cease to be a member of the Assembly, if: a. “ he or she declares in writing to the Speaker or to the Representative of the List from which his or her name was extracted that he or she will not support the List from which his or her name was extracted.”
Did Charrandass write to the speaker? No. He is still a member.
b. “he or she declares in writing to the Speaker or to the Representative of the List from which his or her name was extracted, his or her support for another List;” Did C. Persaud wrote to any of the two individuals mentioned? No. He remain a valid member of the assembly.
c. “the Representative of the List from which his or her name was extracted indicates in writing to the Speaker that after meaningful consultation with the Party or Parties that make up the List that the Party or Parties have lost confidence in that member and the Representative of the List issues a written notice of recall to that member and forwards a copy of that notice to the Speaker.
“Did the representative of the coalition’s list issue a notice of recall to C. Persaud or the Speaker? No. C. Persaud remains a valid member of the national assembly right up to the point where he voted and until he resigned or a notice of recall was issued to the Speaker by the representative of the list. Speculation by Govt lawyers on the intent of Charrandass to vote the way he did prior to the No confidence debate has no merit. Charrandass had his prerogative based on article 9, through” sovereignty belongs to the people,” as a representative of some 8000 plus citizens.
A dollar has a face value of what is printed on it and like article 156-3, it is what is written at a, b, and c. There is nothing written in article 156-3 that states that a member voting against the list would or could invalidate his vote.
The law is language not assumptions! Inference used by government lawyers is an attempt to mislead. Article 156-3-a and b speaks to the conscience of a member to inform the speaker and representative of the list. It is nothing more than a loophole for an MP to get out of parliament. Article 156-3,nc. gives the party the right to kick a representative of the people out. This should be a major concern for the people. This is a direct assault on, “sovereignty belongs to the people who exercise it through their representatives.”
Charrandass vote was a simple exercise of the sovereignty of the eight thousand odd people who resonate to him as their representative. There is nothing in article 156-3 to negate that.
Rudolph Singh

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News