Court cannot stop no-confidence proceedings – Speaker

While the politicians on both sides of the House continue to hint at their power play moves for the possible no-confidence motion, Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, made it pellucid that should the government decide to approach the court for a judicial review, that review will not be allowed to interfere during or before the parliamentary proceedings take place.

Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman

Trotman said that it is the right of the government to bring a confidence motion and they can also ask for a judicial review. The House Speaker said, “The confidence motion is only the reverse of the no confidence motion and from my experience, when opposition parties call for that it is usually followed by that response from the government. Based on what I know and according to the Constitution that would take precedence because the government’s business comes first. Either way, the House will find itself discussing the confidence entrusted in the government and either way, the matter will be settled.” He added, “The government can go to the court for a review but I cannot allow the court to interfere with our work for we are in unprecedented waters. A judicial review can be made after we have made our decision because they have that right but not during the time we have to make a decision or before we make our decision.” While the opposition may have played one of the most unexpected moves in Guyana’s political history with the laying of a no-confidence motion, there are options available to the government that could either frustrate or simply close the chapter on preparations for early general elections. When the political opposition brought a no-confidence motion, which is premised on the belief that the powers in charge are no longer fit to run the country, the government has the option of bringing a confidence motion to the National Assembly. A no-confidence motion is a challenge to the government’s ability to run the affairs of the country efficiently. According to a legal officer, once Government brings a confidence motion, it would take precedence over the no-confidence motion brought by the political opposition. This, of course, would delay the process of dealing with the no-confidence motion in a timely manner. Even if the government does not decide to play this card, it can always resort to calling for a judicial review of the no-confidence motion. This can take a period of six months. The legal officer said that it is not farfetched for one to conclude that the government might go this route, as it has developed a pattern of taking matters to the court when it is not satisfied with a particular decision or ruling of the National Assembly. He explained that even the judicial review, which can take up to six months, can also be granted another extension if the Chief Justice requires such. With this in mind, he concluded that it is highly unlikely, “in spite of all the talk of early general elections” that anything will come to fruition in 2015. Attorney General Anil Nandlall was asked yesterday whether the government has considered using either of the two moves when the National Assembly comes out of recess in October. “I will comment on our moves at the opportune time,” he said. However, a government official has confirmed that talks have already begun as to how the administration plans to effectively deal with the political opposition’s no-confidence motion. While talks of a possible judicial review and laying of a confidence motion are in the air, Leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC). Khemraj Ramjattan, had stated that he had reliable information that three parliamentarians from the Opposition’s camp are expected to be bought to vote against the no-confidence motion. However, government has dismissed such allegations and has called on the attorney to make a report to the police and release forthwith all information that he supposedly received from his source. Ramjattan said that it comes as a surprise that those two options are now on the table for the government and though speculative, he said that the Constitution is most explicit when it comes to a no-confidence motion. He said that once this motion is passed by a majority of the Parliamentarians of the House, the government must resign within 90 days and elections held thereafter. “Based on my legal opinion, there is nothing that causes that motion to be subject to judicial review, but knowing the busybody called Anil Nandlall (Attorney General), he will take it to the Chief Justice, and I rather feel that he will make short shrift of it.” “The only  people that can block this motion are the movers of the motion or the parliamentarians by not voting for it, and that is the limit in relation to that, so I am not in any way scared…We have got reliable information that the PPP’s answer to the no-confidence motion is not what is being said, but at least by buying off three parliamentarians at $30M each to vote no, rather than yes, and that’s the only way…and that’s the only option they have.” Leader of the A Partnership for National Unity, David Granger, said at his recent press conference that he was not aware of such claims made by Ramjattan but is certain that if any opposition member is to be bought, it would not be any from his team