Skip to main content

January 13 2019

Source

Although the recent legal challenge to the validity of former parliamentarian Charrandass Persaud’s election as a Member of Parliament (MP) due to his dual citizenship has raised questions about government members with a similar status, both of the governing coalition’s partners, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance for Change (AFC), have expressed an unwillingness to speak on the issue.

The issue of MPs holding dual citizenship took centre stage once again following a vote by Persaud, then an AFC member and government parliamentarian, which resulted in the opposition PPP/C’s no confidence motion against government being declared passed on December 21st on a vote of 33 to 32.

Following the vote, Persaud, who has Canadian citizenship, solicited the help of the Canadian High Commission and his close friend Peter Ramsaroop to safely leave the country.

Joseph Harmon

As a result, a legal challenge has been filed by a private citizen, Compton Herbert Reid, who contends that by virtue of his citizenship disqualifying him as an MP, Persaud was not eligible to vote on the no-confidence motion.

According to Article 155 (1) (a) of the constitution, “No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly who is, by virtue of his or her own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state.”

“We don’t have a position on it as yet,” was all APNU Chairman Joseph Harmon would say when contacted by Sunday Stabroek on dual citizenship of government parliamentarians.

Aside from confirming that he has dual citizenship, Harmon could not name any other government MP who has such a status.

However, this newspaper has been told that apart from Harmon, there are three APNU MPs who have dual citizenship, with one being a United States (US) citizen and two others who are holders of United Kingdom (UK) citizens.

Raphael Trotman

“The management committee of the party discussed this matter and determined that this is a matter internal to the party and would not be discussed publicly despite the fact that we are all within the law,” AFC Leader Raphael Trotman told Sunday Stabroek yesterday after he was asked about party MPs who are holders of a foreign passports and to ascertain if steps would be taken to replace them.

Several days ago, Trotman had indicated that he was trying to confirm the party’s parliamentarians with such a status.

“I am in the process of verifying which MPs representing the AFC have dual citizenship,” Trotman had said in a brief comment last Monday. When pressed on the release of the names of those persons he had responded “I may be able to say when complete but will need the party’s permission to publish one way or another.”

This newspaper has since learnt that besides Persaud, who has been expelled from the AFC, there is no other AFC MP with dual citizenship.

On the opposition side, this newspaper was told that there is at least one member who has Canadian citizenship, while two reportedly have US citizenship.

‘Taking steps’

Following Persaud’s divisive vote, Attorney General Basil Williams has cited his Canadian citizenship as being among the reasons why his vote was not valid. 

Williams has argued that in keeping with Article 155(1), Persaud was not qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly. He, however, has specified that it is not the owing of allegiance to the foreign State by virtue of being a citizen of that country that is grounds for disqualification from sitting in the National Assembly but rather the “voluntary taking of steps to acknowledge that citizenship that causes the disqualification.”

Since nomination day in 2015 and up to the time of voting on the no-confidence motion, Persaud held a passport and possessed the rights and obligations as a citizen of Canada.

As a result, questions have been raised as to why steps were not taken before his vote to ensure that this constitutional provision was not violated. There have also been calls for the parliamentary parties to make public the names of the members who have dual citizenship.

Observers have also questioned why government would include such persons on their list of candidates, knowing very well that it was unlawful to do so.

When a person is to be a candidate, he has to sign a statutory declaration as provided for by the Representation of the People Act. The declaration form, which must be submitted to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), makes no direct reference to dual citizenship. In part, candidates are asked to declare that they are “aware of the provisions of articles 53 and 155 of the constitution with respect to the qualifications and disqualifications for election as a Member of the National Assembly.”

GECOM has since distanced itself from the responsibility of determining which candidate has dual citizenship. In fact, an official has explained that that responsibility lies with the candidate as it is him or her who has to make the declaration.

In 2015, when this issue was raised, the representative of the APNU+AFC list, Professor Harold Lutchman, was adamant that he had no authority to take any action in such instances.“That is for the authorities including the president to take action,” Lutchman had told this newspaper when contacted then. “I don’t have that sort of constitutional authority,” he added, while noting that he did not know which of the incoming MPs on the coalition’s list had dual citizenship. He has said too that he had made no inquiry into such a matter before pointing out that a precedent existed with several MPs in the previous parliament having dual citizenship.

Noting that the issues would best be addressed by the party leader, the law professors said, “All that I did was to sign off on the list agreed to by both parties.” He advised persons with objections to take them to court.

Changed

Former AFC leader Khemraj Ramjattan had previously acknowledged that those who hold seats in Parliament and have foreign passports were in breach of the constitution, but said that he believed that the law should be amended to accommodate them.

Then Leader of the Opposition and APNU and now President David Granger had told this newspaper in 2012 that the coalition had not discussed the issue but would. He had said that from the time that law was written, the situation has changed. “The diaspora is so large and important [to Guyana]. We should not continue to have such a dichotomy situation,” he had said, before adding, “I am not saying here that the law must be changed. I am saying that we should hear what the people need and establish the laws they want.”

In June, 2015, C R Bernard wrote to Lutchman and Representative of the PPP/C list Donald Ramotar requesting that persons who have allegiance to another state to not be allowed to become parliamentarians as this would be a violation of the constitution. In his letter, Bernard said that their taking action to avoid the violation of the constitution will also avoid legal action being taken against members of their parties as was done in Jamaica.

FoRaphael Trotmanllowing a failed bid to have the Speaker reverse the vote on the confidence motion, Williams had indicated that the government’s legal challenge to the validity of the vote would be two-fold–Persaud’s alleged disqualification from voting given his Canadian citizenship and that 34 rather than 33 votes of the 65 MPs were needed to constitute the majority required.

The citizenship aspect of the case was filed the very next day by Reid, who in an urgent fixed date application said that at all material times Persaud purported to be a validly elected member of the National Assembly.

This, Reid said, was achieved by virtue of Persaud being extracted from the APNU+AFC geographic constituency list for Region 6 (East Berbice, Corentyne)  for the 2015 national and regional Elections, though he knew he had allegiance, obedience and adherence as a citizen, to a foreign power, Canada.

Reid, in his application for a stay of the enforcement of the motion, argued that Persaud had been the holder of a valid Canadian passport, No. AC773625, issued by the Government of Canada on 25th October, 2017.

This current passport, he said, was a replacement of the previous passport No. JX818124, which was issued to Persaud on 29th January, 2013 and which was due to expire on 29th January, 2018.

Reid argues that under the Canadian Citizenship Act. RSC 1985 c. C-29 and its Regulations, an applicant for citizenship of Canada is obliged under Section 24 of the said Act, to swear an oath of citizenship that is stated in the Regulations of the Act, which includes swearing an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen of Canada.

On this point, Reid surmised that by virtue of his Canadian citizenship, Persaud is a person who, by his own act was under an acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience and adherence to a foreign power and therefore not qualified to be elected a Member of the National Assembly of Guyana and had no legal right to vote as an elected member of the National Assembly of Guyana.

Members of both APNU+AFC and the PPP/C told Sunday Stabroek that the outcome of this case will guide how government and the opposition deals with its dual citizenship MPs.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

On this point, Reid surmised that by virtue of his Canadian citizenship, Persaud is a person who, by his own act was under an acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience and adherence to a foreign power and therefore not qualified to be elected a Member of the National Assembly of Guyana and had no legal right to vote as an elected member of the National Assembly of Guyana.

.However, this newspaper has been told that apart from Harmon, there are three APNU MPs who have dual citizenship, with one being a United States (US) citizen and two others who are holders of United Kingdom (UK) citizens.

SO WHAT COME FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG. So the coalition presently has four MP's with duel citizen and are still sitting in parliament and voting.Whenever you come to court, you must have a Clean slate to present a case.

K

Reid’s argument is laughable from the standpoint that it opens up doors that he will struggle to control the storm raging through them. Maybe he was coached by the hapless Coalition bais.

FM
 
"Members of both APNU+AFC and the PPP/C told Sunday Stabroek that the outcome of this case will guide how government and the opposition deals with its dual citizenship MPs."

pull quote

FM
Drugb posted:

Dat bai dj can lose he paycheck for posting this article. 

How the r@ss you turn so stupiddy, advancing age catching up with you ?  you aren't a bad guy in the olden days your views weren't bad.

Django
Django posted:
Drugb posted:

Dat bai dj can lose he paycheck for posting this article. 

How the r@ss you turn so stupiddy, advancing age catching up with you ?  you aren't a bad guy in the olden days your views weren't bad.

Stop insulting the cripple.

K

Folks, dual citizenship MP's are on both sides of the aisle in Guyana Government. Many legislations were passed by government ministers in parliament with 33 seats where about 14 of those MP's has dual citizenship. Are we to reverse those legislations as invalid? Let's think on the line of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

FM
Prince posted:

Folks, dual citizenship MP's are on both sides of the aisle in Guyana Government. Many legislations were passed by government ministers in parliament with 33 seats where about 14 of those MP's has dual citizenship. Are we to reverse those legislations as invalid? Let's think on the line of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

The coalition knows that but they think everybody else is stupid.

K
Prince posted:

Folks, dual citizenship MP's are on both sides of the aisle in Guyana Government. Many legislations were passed by government ministers in parliament with 33 seats where about 14 of those MP's has dual citizenship. Are we to reverse those legislations as invalid? Let's think on the line of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

the Court case has to do with Charandaas' illegal NC vote attempting to topple a legally elected Gov't

there is doctrine to deal with 'other' votes . . . meanwhile, the PPP can feel free to mount challenges re same

FM
kp posted:

[1] How is Charrandas  vote is illegal? [2] Was his previous votes illegal when bills were passed.

re [i] what is it about Article 155 (1)(a) that is so hard for you to understand?

(1) No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly who ––

     (a) is, by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state;

re [2] see my last post on this thread

FM
kp posted:

How many MPs fall into the same category as Charrandas because of duel citizenship  and what will happen to them.

whatever the number, if they run afoul of 155(1)(a), they are out

FM
ronan posted:
Prince posted:

Folks, dual citizenship MP's are on both sides of the aisle in Guyana Government. Many legislations were passed by government ministers in parliament with 33 seats where about 14 of those MP's has dual citizenship. Are we to reverse those legislations as invalid? Let's think on the line of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

the Court case has to do with Charandaas' illegal NC vote attempting to topple a legally elected Gov't

there is doctrine to deal with 'other' votes . . . meanwhile, the PPP can feel free to mount challenges re same

Charandass was elected from a list and accepted by the PNC from that list and never deemed him illegal until he voted against them. Note, he voted many times for them before and the vote was deemed legal. This is not about doctrine to deal with this or that. it is about abrogating a doctrine of informally ignoring the dual citizenship rule for over a generation.

FM
D2 posted:
ronan posted:
Prince posted:

Folks, dual citizenship MP's are on both sides of the aisle in Guyana Government. Many legislations were passed by government ministers in parliament with 33 seats where about 14 of those MP's has dual citizenship. Are we to reverse those legislations as invalid? Let's think on the line of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

the Court case has to do with Charandaas' illegal NC vote attempting to topple a legally elected Gov't

there is doctrine to deal with 'other' votes . . . meanwhile, the PPP can feel free to mount challenges re same

Charandass was elected from a list and accepted by the PNC from that list and never deemed him illegal until he voted against them. Note, he voted many times for them before and the vote was deemed legal. This is not about doctrine to deal with this or that. it is about abrogating a doctrine of informally ignoring the dual citizenship rule for over a generation.

good luck with that in Court

that's an argument you make in a treason case, not a Constitutional matter

FM
Last edited by Former Member

Guyana Constitution

Section 155 -- All parts

Source -- https://guyana.crowdstack.io/topic/a...3#590444326117400203

155.
(1)
No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the
National Assembly who—
(a)
is, by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state;
(b)
is a person certified to be insane or otherwise adjudged to be of unsound mind under any law in force in Guyana;
(c)
is under sentence of death imposed on him by a court, or is serving a sentence of imprisonment (by whatever name called) exceeding six months imposed on him by a court orsubstituted by competent authority for some other sentence imposed on him by a court, or is under such a sentence of imprisonment the execution of which has been suspended; or
(d)
holds or is acting in the office of any Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature, a member of the Public Service Appellate Tribunal, the Elections Commission, the Judicial Service Commission, the Public Service Commission, the Teaching Service Commission or the Police Service Commission, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Ombudsman or the Auditor General.
(6)
Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraphs (1),
Parliament may provide that a person shall not be qualified for election
as a member of the National Assembly in any of the following cases, that
is to say—
(a)
if he holds or is acting in any office that is specified by Parliament and the functions of which involve responsibility for, or in connection with, the conduct of an election or the compilation or revision of any register of electors for the
purposes of an election;
(b)
subject to any exceptions and limitations prescribed by Parliament, if he has any such interest in any such Government contract, as may be so prescribed;
(c)
subject as aforesaid, if—
(i)
he holds or is acting in or performing the functions of any office or appointment prescribed by Parliament either individually or by reference to a class of office or
appointment;
(ii)
he belongs to any armed force of Guyana or to any class of persons that is comprised in any such force; or
(iii)
he belongs to any police force of Guyana or to any class of persons that is comprised in any such force;
(d)
if, during such period (not exceeding five years) preceding the election day as may be prescribed by Parliament, he—

(i)

has been convicted by a court of an offence relating to excitement of hostility or ill-will against any person orclass of persons on the grounds of his or their race; or
(ii)
has been convicted by a court of any offence connected with an election that is so prescribed or has been reported guilty of such an offence by the High Court in
proceedings under article 163:
Provided that Parliament may empower the court to exempt a person from disqualification for election on account of such a conviction or report if the court deems it just so to do.
(7)
For the purposes of paragraph (1) (c)—
(a)
two or more sentences of imprisonment that are required to be served consecutively shall be regarded as separate sentences if none of those sentences exceeds six months, but if any one of those sentences exceeds that term they shall be regarded as one sentence; and
(b)
no account shall be taken of a sentence of imprisonment imposed as an alternative to or in default of the payment of a fine.
(8)
In paragraph (6) (b) “Government contract” means any contract made with the Government of Guyana or with a department of that Government or with an officer of that Government contracting as such.
FM
Last edited by Former Member
ronan posted:
D2 posted:
ronan posted:
Prince posted:

Folks, dual citizenship MP's are on both sides of the aisle in Guyana Government. Many legislations were passed by government ministers in parliament with 33 seats where about 14 of those MP's has dual citizenship. Are we to reverse those legislations as invalid? Let's think on the line of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

the Court case has to do with Charandaas' illegal NC vote attempting to topple a legally elected Gov't

there is doctrine to deal with 'other' votes . . . meanwhile, the PPP can feel free to mount challenges re same

Charandass was elected from a list and accepted by the PNC from that list and never deemed him illegal until he voted against them. Note, he voted many times for them before and the vote was deemed legal. This is not about doctrine to deal with this or that. it is about abrogating a doctrine of informally ignoring the dual citizenship rule for over a generation.

good luck with that in Court

Courts accept lots of convention where there is a tacit understanding the the party agrees a ruling in the law was not met according to law but by common law. Contract theory say there ought to be written agreement , signed and witnessed by third party agreement  and often that means a notary. However, word of mouth or promises made by two people are also legally binding. 

If the court has to rule that if this practice existed for over a generation and has not produced any negative consequences it has to be sound. These men were legally sworn in as legislators and accepted by their peers as such. It is terribly hypocritical that the APNU with a dozen such individuals exorcising legal authority in the state be allowed to say this day and on on this occasion the exercise of power was illegal.

FM
D2 posted:
ronan posted:
D2 posted:
ronan posted:
Prince posted:

Folks, dual citizenship MP's are on both sides of the aisle in Guyana Government. Many legislations were passed by government ministers in parliament with 33 seats where about 14 of those MP's has dual citizenship. Are we to reverse those legislations as invalid? Let's think on the line of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

the Court case has to do with Charandaas' illegal NC vote attempting to topple a legally elected Gov't

there is doctrine to deal with 'other' votes . . . meanwhile, the PPP can feel free to mount challenges re same

Charandass was elected from a list and accepted by the PNC from that list and never deemed him illegal until he voted against them. Note, he voted many times for them before and the vote was deemed legal. This is not about doctrine to deal with this or that. it is about abrogating a doctrine of informally ignoring the dual citizenship rule for over a generation.

good luck with that in Court

that's an argument you make in a treason case, not a Constitutional matter

Courts accept lots of convention where there is a tacit understanding the the party agrees a ruling in the law was not met according to law but by common law. Contract theory say there ought to be written agreement , signed and witnessed by third party agreement  and often that means a notary. However, word of mouth or promises made by two people are also legally binding. 

If the court has to rule that if this practice existed for over a generation and has not produced any negative consequences it has to be sound. These men were legally sworn in as legislators and accepted by their peers as such. It is terribly hypocritical that the APNU with a dozen such individuals exorcising legal authority in the state be allowed to say this day and on on this occasion the exercise of power was illegal.

like i said previous . . .

however, i understand your prejudices, but you need to consult with someone who actually knows what they are talking about

FM
Last edited by Former Member
D2 posted:

Courts accept lots of convention where there is a tacit understanding the the party agrees a ruling in the law was not met according to law but by common law. Contract theory say there ought to be written agreement , signed and witnessed by third party agreement  and often that means a notary. However, word of mouth or promises made by two people are also legally binding. 

If the court has to rule that if this practice existed for over a generation and has not produced any negative consequences it has to be sound. These men were legally sworn in as legislators and accepted by their peers as such. It is terribly hypocritical that the APNU with a dozen such individuals exorcising legal authority in the state be allowed to say this day and on on this occasion the exercise of power was illegal.

Important point.

Of note, if the PNCR/AFC is singling out just ONE individual, it leaves to reason that ALL in such situations must be judged by the same rules.

Section 155 of the legislation is referenced in a few posts above.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Demerara_Guy posted:

Of note, if the PNCR/AFC is singling out just ONE individual, it leaves to reason that ALL in such situations must be judged by the same rules.

it's a Court case sir, not a PR campaign

there IS a difference . . . ask a friend

FM
ronan posted:
D2 posted:
ronan posted:
D2 posted:
ronan posted:
Prince posted:

Folks, dual citizenship MP's are on both sides of the aisle in Guyana Government. Many legislations were passed by government ministers in parliament with 33 seats where about 14 of those MP's has dual citizenship. Are we to reverse those legislations as invalid? Let's think on the line of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

the Court case has to do with Charandaas' illegal NC vote attempting to topple a legally elected Gov't

there is doctrine to deal with 'other' votes . . . meanwhile, the PPP can feel free to mount challenges re same

Charandass was elected from a list and accepted by the PNC from that list and never deemed him illegal until he voted against them. Note, he voted many times for them before and the vote was deemed legal. This is not about doctrine to deal with this or that. it is about abrogating a doctrine of informally ignoring the dual citizenship rule for over a generation.

good luck with that in Court

that's an argument you make in a treason case, not a Constitutional matter

Courts accept lots of convention where there is a tacit understanding the the party agrees a ruling in the law was not met according to law but by common law. Contract theory say there ought to be written agreement , signed and witnessed by third party agreement  and often that means a notary. However, word of mouth or promises made by two people are also legally binding. 

If the court has to rule that if this practice existed for over a generation and has not produced any negative consequences it has to be sound. These men were legally sworn in as legislators and accepted by their peers as such. It is terribly hypocritical that the APNU with a dozen such individuals exorcising legal authority in the state be allowed to say this day and on on this occasion the exercise of power was illegal.

like i said previous . . .

however, i understand your prejudices, but you need to consult with someone who actually knows what they are talking about

Obviously those who were in the know including Hughes accepted th is behavior without protest until their backsides got caught in the NCV. This device is a scurrilous attempt to repudiate a ruling that  tossed the government out. That I am ignorant of some superior prevailing and preeminent  intellectual argument is pure bullshit. I am being confronted by PNC duplicity at its worse.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
D2 posted:

Obviously those who were in the know including Hughes accepted th is behavior without protest until their backsides got caught in the NCV. This device is a scurrilous attempt to repudiate a ruling that over tossed the government out. That I am ignorant of some superior prevailing and preeminent  intellectual argument is pure bullshit. I am being confronted by PNC duplicity at its worse.

your rant is noted

FM
ronan posted:
Demerara_Guy posted:

Of note, if the PNCR/AFC is singling out just ONE individual, it leaves to reason that ALL in such situations must be judged by the same rules.

it's a Court case sir, not a PR campaign

there IS a difference . . . ask a friend

A matter that reaches a proceedings in a Court is presented by, at least, two sides -- lawyers for the individuals and those for the prosecution.

A Judge then assesses the information and takes into consideration past precedents, decisions similar to the case, prevailing pertinent issues, etc., and then renders her/his decision.

FM
Demerara_Guy posted:
ronan posted:
Demerara_Guy posted:

Of note, if the PNCR/AFC is singling out just ONE individual, it leaves to reason that ALL in such situations must be judged by the same rules.

it's a Court case sir, not a PR campaign

there IS a difference . . . ask a friend

A matter that reaches a proceedings in a Court is presented by, at least, two sides -- lawyers for the individuals and those for the prosecution.

A Judge then assesses the information and takes into consideration past precedents, decisions similar to the case, prevailing pertinent issues, etc., and then renders her/his decision.

The PPP had their pocked judge in Mr Chan and they also have their own. Politics in Guyana penetrates the judiciary. It is a rare thing they will vote against the current regime.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
D2 posted:
ronan posted:
D2 posted:
ronan posted:
Prince posted:

Folks, dual citizenship MP's are on both sides of the aisle in Guyana Government. Many legislations were passed by government ministers in parliament with 33 seats where about 14 of those MP's has dual citizenship. Are we to reverse those legislations as invalid? Let's think on the line of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

the Court case has to do with Charandaas' illegal NC vote attempting to topple a legally elected Gov't

there is doctrine to deal with 'other' votes . . . meanwhile, the PPP can feel free to mount challenges re same

Charandass was elected from a list and accepted by the PNC from that list and never deemed him illegal until he voted against them. Note, he voted many times for them before and the vote was deemed legal. This is not about doctrine to deal with this or that. it is about abrogating a doctrine of informally ignoring the dual citizenship rule for over a generation.

good luck with that in Court

Courts accept lots of convention where there is a tacit understanding the the party agrees a ruling in the law was not met according to law but by common law. Contract theory say there ought to be written agreement , signed and witnessed by third party agreement  and often that means a notary. However, word of mouth or promises made by two people are also legally binding. 

If the court has to rule that if this practice existed for over a generation and has not produced any negative consequences it has to be sound. These men were legally sworn in as legislators and accepted by their peers as such. It is terribly hypocritical that the APNU with a dozen such individuals exorcising legal authority in the state be allowed to say this day and on on this occasion the exercise of power was illegal.

And while the Coalition government is making this objection to Charrandas' vote on the basis of his dual citizenship status, they continue to seat other MPs with similar citizenship conditions. They will look like hypocrites before the court.

FM
D2 posted:

The PPP had their pocked judge in Mr Chan and they also have their own. Politics in Guyana penetrates the judiciary. It is a rare thing they will vote against the current regime.

True. But when elections come up in 2020 (if they even come up then), the presiding regime will need a whole lot more than the voters consent to remain in power. 

FM
ksazma posted:
D2 posted:

The PPP had their pocked judge in Mr Chan and they also have their own. Politics in Guyana penetrates the judiciary. It is a rare thing they will vote against the current regime.

True. But when elections come up in 2020 (if they even come up then), the presiding regime will need a whole lot more than the voters consent to remain in power. 

This stupidity has made them the least trustworthy party. Their base will stay but the additional votes they need to stay in office, some 10 percent of the electorate, is voting for some body else. Neither  of the parties will win a majority. The next government is entering office with a plurality and it appears more likely it will be the PPP 

FM
D2 posted:
ksazma posted:
D2 posted:

The PPP had their pocked judge in Mr Chan and they also have their own. Politics in Guyana penetrates the judiciary. It is a rare thing they will vote against the current regime.

True. But when elections come up in 2020 (if they even come up then), the presiding regime will need a whole lot more than the voters consent to remain in power. 

This stupidity has made them the least trustworthy party. Their base will stay but the additional votes they need to stay in office, some 10 percent of the electorate, is voting for some body else. Neither  of the parties will win a majority. The next government is entering office with a plurality and it appears more likely it will be the PPP 

And there is still the remote possibility that APNU don't see sufficient worth in the AFC to provide the over the top tip so that coalition can be broken up. The Coalition should have accepted that they got taken down by one of their own and go back to the people with that complaint but it appears that they are afraid of the reaction of the people.

FM

Honestly, I prefer the government to comprise of representatives of all people in Guyana so that the chronic imbalance of power and opportunities for all are eliminated. Hopefully that can be accomplished in some form with the next election. But it should not be where the parties go on to fill their plates while the populace continue to be deprived.

FM
ksazma posted:

Honestly, I prefer the government to comprise of representatives of all people in Guyana so that the chronic imbalance of power and opportunities for all are eliminated. Hopefully that can be accomplished in some form with the next election. But it should not be where the parties go on to fill their plates while the populace continue to be deprived.

yeah crocodile

who is the PPP 'reformist' crew you backing again?

lol

FM
ksazma posted:
D2 posted:
ronan posted:
D2 posted:
ronan posted:
Prince posted:

Folks, dual citizenship MP's are on both sides of the aisle in Guyana Government. Many legislations were passed by government ministers in parliament with 33 seats where about 14 of those MP's has dual citizenship. Are we to reverse those legislations as invalid? Let's think on the line of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

the Court case has to do with Charandaas' illegal NC vote attempting to topple a legally elected Gov't

there is doctrine to deal with 'other' votes . . . meanwhile, the PPP can feel free to mount challenges re same

Charandass was elected from a list and accepted by the PNC from that list and never deemed him illegal until he voted against them. Note, he voted many times for them before and the vote was deemed legal. This is not about doctrine to deal with this or that. it is about abrogating a doctrine of informally ignoring the dual citizenship rule for over a generation.

good luck with that in Court

Courts accept lots of convention where there is a tacit understanding the the party agrees a ruling in the law was not met according to law but by common law. Contract theory say there ought to be written agreement , signed and witnessed by third party agreement  and often that means a notary. However, word of mouth or promises made by two people are also legally binding. 

If the court has to rule that if this practice existed for over a generation and has not produced any negative consequences it has to be sound. These men were legally sworn in as legislators and accepted by their peers as such. It is terribly hypocritical that the APNU with a dozen such individuals exorcising legal authority in the state be allowed to say this day and on on this occasion the exercise of power was illegal.

And while the Coalition government is making this objection to Charrandas' vote on the basis of his dual citizenship status, they continue to seat other MPs with similar citizenship conditions. They will look like hypocrites before the court.

Charandass voted for the Budget and it passed. The governments fall if Charandass vote in support of the Budget is not valid. PNC is digging themselves into a deeper hole.

Rigging, frigging and dictatorship is part of DNA. They gave us two black dictators and 32 years of rigging and frigging.

Harmon holds foreign citizenship but its ok for the PNC because he is black. Talk about a bunch of bullies !!!

FM
Last edited by Former Member

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×