No confidence in the no-confidence motions

Jul 15, 2021 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – Despite what has happened in the National Assembly in Trinidad and Tobago where motions of no-confidence were tabled against Ministers of the Government, such motions are NOT permitted under Guyana’s Constitution. Only a motion of no-confidence against the government is admitted by the Constitution.
It is therefore a good thing that the Speaker of the National Assembly has sought legal advice on the non-confidence motions brought by both sides of the House. However, it would also be much better if instead of the Attorney General, the Speaker seeks legal advice from external sources, including from the Commonwealth.
Fifty-five years ago, before Guyana became an Independent State, there appeared a publication entitled, “Conventions and Proprieties of Parliamentary Democracy in India.” That book outlined a number of principles, which existed under the system of parliamentary democracy, which Guyana had adopted.
In a section titled “Responsible Government” the author, Shri K. Santhanam, in arguing that a no-confidence motion against a Minister was not permitted, noted, “Even though the House may want to censure the policy of a particular Ministry, it cannot single out the Minister in charge and pass a motion expressing want of confidence in him. So far as the Opposition is concerned, Cabinet stands or falls together.”
APNU+AFC, however, is attempting the impossible. It is attempting a no-confidence motion against a Minister, a move that totally ignores the concept of collective responsibility.
The APNU+AFC may have grounds for being critical of the actions of the Ministry of Health and the Guyana Police Force. It has expressed criticisms of the handling of the pandemic and about the actions of the Guyana Police Force. But to table a motion of no-confidence against the respective subject Ministers effectively amounts to tabling a motion of no-confidence against the senior officials of the Ministry of Health and the Guyana Police Force.
As has been contended before, a Minister cannot be held accountable for the failures of his officers, only for the failure of policy. Therefore, it makes no sense tabling a motion which is not only unconstitutional and which cannot compel the Minister to resign.
The first Prime Minister of India once explained that a no-confidence motion has only one aim: removing the government and allowing another to take its place. But the Opposition has not moved such a motion against the government. And if it knew that it had any chance of succeeding, it would not have tabled such a motion, it would have gone for a no confidence in the government.
In 2013, the then Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, made the following statement in relation to attempts to silence the then Minister of Home Affairs from speaking in the National Assembly. Speaker Trotman ruled that it was his “firm opinion that the National Assembly can only exercise a supervisory and disciplinary jurisdiction over a Member who has fallen into error of the Standing Orders, but such authority cannot carry over to the Ministerial portfolio of a Member; except as authorised by the Constitution. The decision to dismiss a Minister is solely that of the Executive President. Likewise, the decision of a Minister to resign is solely that of the individual Minister.”
No-confidence motions against individuals are however permitted against Chairpersons of Committees of the House. The PPP/C was forced recently to resort to this measure in order to force the then Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee to step aside. As was stated in Robert Rogers and Rhodi Walters’ “How Parliament Works” 7th edition,” committees whose members are chosen by the House, can have their Chairpersons removed by virtue of no-confidence motions. The logic is simple, the House elects and the House can remove.
This does not apply to Ministers. It is the President who elects and it is only the President who can remove.
The APNU+AFC should heed the advice of one of its former parliamentarians, who, in response, to the tabling of the motions against the Ministers of Health and Home Affairs, said that even if you get one or two votes from the other side to pass the motions, it is meaningless because it means nothing; they will continue being Ministers.
So what is the purpose of the no-confidence motions against the Ministers? Is it for political theatrics? God knows that we have enough of this coming from the APNU+AFC for five months last year. And they have continued with their histrionics, inside and outside of the National Assembly.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---