“If the majority of the court of appeal is right, do I understand that you need 34 votes to send the government home, but you only need 33 to govern?” asked Justice Jacob Wit.
“That is effectively what they are saying,” Mendes answered.
The Honourable Mr Justice Jacob Wit
Replies sorted oldest to newest
No!! It’s a reasonable question of clarification from the Judge!
Where are you confused about?
Baseman posted:No!! It’s a reasonable question of clarification from the Judge! Where are you confused about?
Read again !!
hint
Do Party (s) with higher number of seats in Parliament forms a government ?
Django bai, I don't see anything erroneous with the question. Why do you think he erred?
ksazma posted:Django bai, I don't see anything erroneous with the question. Why do you think he erred?
Please re-read the statement, and revisit Guyana Electoral System.
Django posted:Baseman posted:No!! It’s a reasonable question of clarification from the Judge! Where are you confused about?
Read again !!
hint
Do Party (s) with higher number of seats in Parliament forms a government ?
Only when they coalesce. Independently the 33 seats of APNU and AFC was still not the government. 
Django posted:ksazma posted:Django bai, I don't see anything erroneous with the question. Why do you think he erred?
Please re-read the statement, and revisit Guyana Electoral System.
I don't understand what you mean. The question was rhetorical but not erroneous.
ksazma posted:Django posted:Baseman posted:No!! It’s a reasonable question of clarification from the Judge! Where are you confused about?
Read again !!
hint
Do Party (s) with higher number of seats in Parliament forms a government ?
Only when they coalesce. Independently the 33 seats of APNU and AFC was still not the government.
No !!! a party can have less than majority seats in parliament and can form a Government.
ksazma posted:Django posted:ksazma posted:Django bai, I don't see anything erroneous with the question. Why do you think he erred?
Please re-read the statement, and revisit Guyana Electoral System.
I don't understand what you mean. The question was rhetorical but not erroneous.
Not acceptable, by the Honorable Justice, he should have more deeper understanding of Guyana Constitution the Electoral System.
Django posted:ksazma posted:Django posted:Baseman posted:No!! It’s a reasonable question of clarification from the Judge! Where are you confused about?
Read again !!
hint
Do Party (s) with higher number of seats in Parliament forms a government ?
Only when they coalesce. Independently the 33 seats of APNU and AFC was still not the government.
No !!! a party can have less than majority seats in parliament and can form a Government.
Only when there is not another party with more seats. The party with the majority seats forms the government in Guyana. The only way the 33 seats of the Coalition was able to be the government instead of the 32 seats PPP party was they had to coalesce before the elections. Otherwise, they would have been exactly where they were prior to May 2015.
ksazma posted:Django posted:ksazma posted:Django posted:Baseman posted:No!! It’s a reasonable question of clarification from the Judge! Where are you confused about?
Read again !!
hint
Do Party (s) with higher number of seats in Parliament forms a government ?
Only when they coalesce. Independently the 33 seats of APNU and AFC was still not the government.
No !!! a party can have less than majority seats in parliament and can form a Government.
The party with the majority seats forms the government in Guyana.
Wrong !!! re-visit 2011 government.
Django posted:ksazma posted:Django posted:ksazma posted:Django bai, I don't see anything erroneous with the question. Why do you think he erred?
Please re-read the statement, and revisit Guyana Electoral System.
I don't understand what you mean. The question was rhetorical but not erroneous.
Not acceptable, by the Honorable Justice, he should have more deeper understanding of Guyana Constitution the Electoral System.
The judge was not wrong in his assertion. He is not Williams. 
ksazma posted:Django posted:ksazma posted:Django posted:ksazma posted:Django bai, I don't see anything erroneous with the question. Why do you think he erred?
Please re-read the statement, and revisit Guyana Electoral System.
I don't understand what you mean. The question was rhetorical but not erroneous.
Not acceptable, by the Honorable Justice, he should have more deeper understanding of Guyana Constitution the Electoral System.
The judge was not wrong in his assertion. He is not Williams.
Lil brother, you copping out !!
Django posted:ksazma posted:Django posted:ksazma posted:Django posted:Baseman posted:No!! It’s a reasonable question of clarification from the Judge! Where are you confused about?
Read again !!
hint
Do Party (s) with higher number of seats in Parliament forms a government ?
Only when they coalesce. Independently the 33 seats of APNU and AFC was still not the government.
No !!! a party can have less than majority seats in parliament and can form a Government.
The party with the majority seats forms the government in Guyana.
Wrong !!! re-visit 2011 government.
2011 elections results
PPP - 32 seats
APNU - 26 seats
AFC - 7 seats
Which of the 26 seats APNU or the 7 seats AFC is greater than the 32 seats PPP bai?
ksazma posted:2011 elections results
PPP - 32 seats
APNU - 26 seats
AFC - 7 seats
Which of the 26 seats APNU or the 7 seats AFC is greater than the 32 seats PPP bai?
Being a jokey now which ever party (s) contest the Elections and wins the most Votes forms the Government, seats in parliament isn't the benchmark to form the government in Guyana.
Django posted:ksazma posted:Django posted:ksazma posted:Django posted:ksazma posted:Django bai, I don't see anything erroneous with the question. Why do you think he erred?
Please re-read the statement, and revisit Guyana Electoral System.
I don't understand what you mean. The question was rhetorical but not erroneous.
Not acceptable, by the Honorable Justice, he should have more deeper understanding of Guyana Constitution the Electoral System.
The judge was not wrong in his assertion. He is not Williams.
Lil brother, you copping out !!
Why you say so? The judge was perfectly correct in his rhetorical question. He was actually putting lash pun those two Appellate Court fools who foolishly argued that 32 plus 34 equals 65.
Django posted:ksazma posted:2011 elections results
PPP - 32 seats
APNU - 26 seats
AFC - 7 seats
Which of the 26 seats APNU or the 7 seats AFC is greater than the 32 seats PPP bai?
Being a jokey now
That is math bai. Was APNU or AFC the government from 2011 to 2015? Together they had one more seat but they weren't together yet. Had they not gotten together, they would still be the opposition today. Actually, today, the Coalition is illegally squatting in office.
ksazma posted:Why you say so? The judge was perfectly correct in his rhetorical question. He was actually putting lash pun those two Appellate Court fools who foolishly argued that 32 plus 34 equals 65.
The question is, the required number of votes of all 65 members of parliament, that will force the government to call elections, when ever a motion of confidence is tabled against the government.
The 32 + 34 = 65, are for weak thinkers.
Stretch to fit logic!
Haha. PNC getting desperate. CCJ judge is getting blame now. THere is no end to the madness.
Django posted:ksazma posted:Why you say so? The judge was perfectly correct in his rhetorical question. He was actually putting lash pun those two Appellate Court fools who foolishly argued that 32 plus 34 equals 65.
The question is, the required number of votes of all 65 members of parliament, that will force the government to call elections, when ever a motion of confidence is tabled against the government.
The 32 + 34 = 65, are for weak thinkers.
The stupidity of the PNC position showed up in their performance at the hearing.
The judge asked a perfectly relevant question in the context of this hearing, not theatrics!
Django posted:ksazma posted:Why you say so? The judge was perfectly correct in his rhetorical question. He was actually putting lash pun those two Appellate Court fools who foolishly argued that 32 plus 34 equals 65.
The question is, the required number of votes of all 65 members of parliament, that will force the government to call elections, when ever a motion of confidence is tabled against the government.
The 32 + 34 = 65, are for weak thinkers.
Exactly my point. Those two appellate court judges were weak thinkers. The only stipulation for the NCV is that ALL 65 members have to vote. Had the Coalition been smarter, some should have been absent and the stipulation would have worked in their favor.
Bibi Haniffa posted:Haha. PNC getting desperate. CCJ judge is getting blame now. THere is no end to the madness.
Out of track, follow the conversation.
Williams is a fool. 😀
ksazma posted:Django posted:ksazma posted:Why you say so? The judge was perfectly correct in his rhetorical question. He was actually putting lash pun those two Appellate Court fools who foolishly argued that 32 plus 34 equals 65.
The question is, the required number of votes of all 65 members of parliament, that will force the government to call elections, when ever a motion of confidence is tabled against the government.
The 32 + 34 = 65, are for weak thinkers.
Exactly my point. Those two appellate court judges were weak thinkers. The only stipulation for the NCV is that ALL 65 members have to vote. Had the Coalition been smarter, some should have been absent and the stipulation would have worked in their favor.
Or raise an objection to the vote, from the Government side, they were dumbstruck.
Django posted:ksazma posted:Django posted:ksazma posted:Why you say so? The judge was perfectly correct in his rhetorical question. He was actually putting lash pun those two Appellate Court fools who foolishly argued that 32 plus 34 equals 65.
The question is, the required number of votes of all 65 members of parliament, that will force the government to call elections, when ever a motion of confidence is tabled against the government.
The 32 + 34 = 65, are for weak thinkers.
Exactly my point. Those two appellate court judges were weak thinkers. The only stipulation for the NCV is that ALL 65 members have to vote. Had the Coalition been smarter, some should have been absent and the stipulation would have worked in their favor.
Or raise an objection to the vote, from the Government side, they were dumbstruck.
The only reason the government did not raise any objections is because they truly agreed with the NCV. It is only the next day when it stared to dawn on them that they are about to find themselves back in the Opposition that they began making up one silly straw clutching excuse after the other. And to their shame, every excuse they made up hurt them more than it did the PPP.
They remembered the stupid argument of Yuji’s friend, the Orange jump-suit man!!
Happy Friday. The comedy from the court continue at GNI
The stupidity with PNC and it supporters in abundance.
I can see Kaz don’t want to be harsh on Django ...
Dave posted:Happy Friday. The comedy from the court continue at GNI
The stupidity with PNC and it supporters in abundance.
I can see Kaz don’t want to be harsh on Django ...
Bai, while I totally disagree with my big brother, my respect for him is greater than my disagreement.
Dave posted:I can see Kaz don’t want to be harsh on Django ...
Why should he be uncivil ?
The government is trying to make their supporters feel everything is fine. I don't think their supporters are oblivious to the pit they are in. They are going to have to leave office one way or the other. The clock is ticking.
Django posted:Dave posted:I can see Kaz don’t want to be harsh on Django ...
Why should he be uncivil ?
Kaz Provide the answer why he’s polite to you.. read his explanation slowly.
Time to move along man and stop being fastidious and wasting time on trivial matters, not every comments you have to respond to
Ow Bai, DJ is clutching at straws. It’s good to see that a great deal of civility exists but DJ’s argument is exactly that of William’s and Posters responses are similar to that of the CCJ judges schooling and scolding him in a very professional manner.
This case is looking very good for the PPP so far with the PNC and their lawyers displaying a great degree of haplessness.
I would have never known that someone could be as foolish as Williams. I have lost count on how many times he has shot himself in the foot. 😀
Williams is a disgrace to AG’s across the world. The man is a complete dunce !
Ramjattan would have done a much better job as AG.
yuji22 posted:Williams is a disgrace to AG’s across the world. The man is a complete dunce !
Ramjattan would have done a much better job as AG.
He fits right in with the other Coalition hapless fools. 😀
ksazma posted:yuji22 posted:Williams is a disgrace to AG’s across the world. The man is a complete dunce !
Ramjattan would have done a much better job as AG.
He fits right in with the other Coalition hapless fools. 😀
Including the Coalition supporters who vote them in.. rite
Bibi Haniffa posted:Haha. PNC getting desperate. CCJ judge is getting blame now. THere is no end to the madness.
PNCR/APNU/AFC running in circles completely unaware of the basic issues.
Django posted:33 or 34? CCJ begins hearing appeal on passage of No Confidence motion
“If the majority of the court of appeal is right, do I understand that you need 34 votes to send the government home, but you only need 33 to govern?” asked Justice Jacob Wit.
“That is effectively what they are saying,” Mendes answered.
The Honourable Mr Justice Jacob Wit
Access to this requires a premium membership.