Dear Editor,

The subject “No-confidence Motion” has been topical recently.

 

Last week the Greek Parliament had before it, a “No-confidence Motion” which after discussion and debate resulted in the Motion being defeated by a one vote majority, the Government survived.

Likewise, the British Parliament faced a No-confidence Motion brought by the Opposition. That Motion was defeated; hence the Government was not required to resign.

During the said week in the British Parliament, a day before the No-confidence Motion there was another Motion on “Brexit” as presented by the Prime Minister. It was not passed! Why? Because 118 members of the party in power with a significant majority in the house voted against the Motion. The Motion failed. There was no vilification or derogation of those Government MPs who voted against the Motion. It was seen as a democratic process, not a betrayal of trust. Instead, it reflected a democratic process and the entrenched tradition of the British Parliament and its people.

In Guyana, when the Opposition moved a No-confidence Motion on the 21st December, 2018 in the National Assembly and a member on the Government side supported the Opposition, it appeared to some persons as an act of infamy and repulsive to parliamentary norms.

 

After the Government member voted “yes”, all hell broke loose in the Assembly. There were efforts to halt the counting of the votes, also reported abuse, threats and assault of the perceived offending member. The Government members realized at that stage that it was the end of their tenure as it would lead to a 33/32 vote which would be a majority vote. It signaled the premature end of the Government in office.

From behavioural patterns of the Parliamentarians in the Assembly on that day, it was obvious that at critical stages the members of the Assembly knew, understood, recognized and accepted the implications of a 33/32 vote in favour of the Opposition. The Motion was duly carried. This was confirmed by the Clerk of the Assembly and pronounced on by the Speaker. The Prime Minister conceded that the No-confidence Motion was legally passed and he formally accepted that position and alluded to the various things which have to follow. He announced that the Government had fallen. The democratic trees bloomed only a short while.

Laws

Laws are made for the security of citizens and the harmonious development of society so that each and every citizen will enjoy and preserve his/her entitled rights.

 

In like manner institutions created under those laws, rules, regulations, traditions and conventions are equally embraced to assure the security and development of the citizens.

This goal is accepted by the leaders of the entire society.

The separation of powers in which three branches of government are independently established being the Executive, the Parliament and the Judiciary ensure the effective working of a Democratic process.

The Nation is now confronted with national issues including qualification of sitting members of Parliament and what constitutes a majority.

 

Majority

It will be naïve to separate the voting on the No-confidence Motion on the 21st December, 2018 from what has been the established historical norm and current practice that obtain in the National Assembly.

There is no ambiguity in stating that 33 is greater than 32. Those known 33/32 figures have guided the business and decisions in the Assembly over many years.

On the question of majority it is necessary to determine what happens in the Assembly when there is an equality of votes.

 

Article 168(1) and (2) of the Constitution states:

“(1) Save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, all questions proposed for decision in the National Assembly shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting.

(2) Except as provided by the next following paragraph, the Speaker or other member presiding in the Assembly shall  not vote unless on any question the votes are equally divided, in which case he shall have and exercise a casting vote.

(3) A Speaker elected from among persons who are not members of the Assembly shall have neither an original nor a casting vote and if, upon any question before the Assembly when such a Speaker is presiding, the votes of the members are equally divided, the motion shall be lost.”

 

The vote being 33 to 32 carried as pronounced by the Speaker was a majority.

Ineligibility

Arguments have been made claiming that the vote of the Government member who supported the Opposition Motion should be disregarded. The rationale given is that the said member of Government Bench is a citizen of a foreign country and ought not to have been in the National Assembly.

However, Article 165(2) of the Constitution states:

 

“(2) The Assembly may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership (including any vacancy not filled when the Assembly first meets after the commencement of this Constitution or after any dissolution of Parliament) and the presence or participation of any person not entitled to be present at or to participate in the proceedings of the Assembly shall not invalidate those proceedings.

That Article negates the argument that a perceived disqualified member who participated in the proceedings and voted that such a vote lacks validity.

In law there is the established maxim which addresses the presumption of regularity and it appears that Article 165(2) above preserves that concept.

Recent reports in the media suggest that members of the Government, including Ministers, fall into the same category of that member of Parliament whose vote they want to nullify.

 

Assuming but not admitting that the vote of the questioned member is a nullity, what is the legal consequence in relation to the volume of laws passed in the said Assembly, in which members of identical status of the questioned member voted ‘yes!’?

It is inviting anarchy if all of those laws are to be annulled, especially the budgetary laws.

What is the consequence of a No-confidence Motion with which has been properly passed and validated by the speaker?

The consequence is captured by Article 106(6) of the Constitution which states:

“(6) The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.”

The honourable Speaker of the National Assembly is worthy of the highest commendation for being fair, firm, fearless and resolute in his refusal to rescind the decision pronounced by him in the National Assembly on the 21st December, 2018 that cannot be changed.

As the poet observed:

“The moving finger writes and having writ moves on nor all thy piety nor writ shall lure it back again to cancel half a line or all thy tears wash out a word of it.”

(Simply put, what’s done cannot be undone)

This matter has now moved away from the legislative arm of Government to the judicial arm.

The citizens, politicians, various organizations, the international community, Caricom and the world at large await the pronouncement of the Court.

Democracy is alive!

Long live respect and loyalty to the Constitution!

Yours faithfully,

Jailall T. Kissoon and

Vibert Parvatan,

Former Ministers of the Government