So we clutching at straws now Django bhai? Actually, I don't think that the Coalition government will fight this in court. I think they prefer the slo fiah mo fiah strategy.
This dude is seeking to advise the Coalition government.
Nah bhai, them lawyers trying their interpretation. The AG got a legal team looking in to the issue, by the end of next week the verdict will be out.No slo fiah mo fiah, election will be held.
Nonsense. Then their "Majority" was also not a "Majority!"
If it requires one more, then you are saying they needed an advantage of 3 as 2 is not a viable number with 65!
Thanks to Ralph Ramkarran, Hughs got wild ideas!
Majority of the entire membership
A majority of the entire membership is a voting basis that requires that more than half of all the members of a body (including those absent and those present but not voting) vote in favor of a proposition in order for it to be passed.In practical terms, it means an absence or an abstention from voting is equivalent to a "no" vote.It may be contrasted with a majority vote which only requires more than half of those actually voting to approve a proposition for it to be enacted. An absolute majority may also be the same as a majority of the entire membership, although this usage is not consistent.
In addition, a supermajority could be specified in this voting basis, such as a vote of "two-thirds of the entire membership".
By way of illustration, in February 2007 the Italian Government fell after it won a vote in the Italian Senate by 158 votes to 136 (with 24 abstentions). The government needed an absolute majority in the 318 member house but fell two votes short of the required 160 when two of its own supporters abstained.
Take a look at the above, the question is what is half of 65 , and what number is majority.
Boy, that so stupid. Then why even have an odd number if .5 will become a factor. Alyuh deh pon sheer stupidness! They needed 160 because 159 was exactly 50% and not a majority! Same with Vanuatu, they are 56. Any even number will, by default, means 2 for a majority.
Alyuh prapa stretching it to justify Slo Faiya Mo Faiya campaign!
Banna, i am not disputing, just present to see what posters think.
Well duh is Hugh's argument. And I'm surprised that Ramkarran would publish that and then had to take it back! Sheer stupidness!
So we clutching at straws now Django bhai? Actually, I don't think that the Coalition government will fight this in court. I think they prefer the slo fiah mo fiah strategy.
This dude is seeking to advise the Coalition government.
Nah bhai, them lawyers trying their interpretation. The AG got a legal team looking in to the issue, by the end of next week the verdict will be out.No slo fiah mo fiah, election will be held.
Unfortunately the PNC does not have a good track record when they lose elections. Carter wrote of their behavior even on elections day in 1992. That banna that I tagged above is also thinking slo fiah, mo fiah.
So we clutching at straws now Django bhai? Actually, I don't think that the Coalition government will fight this in court. I think they prefer the slo fiah mo fiah strategy.
This dude is seeking to advise the Coalition government.
Nah bhai, them lawyers trying their interpretation. The AG got a legal team looking in to the issue, by the end of next week the verdict will be out.No slo fiah mo fiah, election will be held.
Which AG, the dunce one? Interpret what, 33 > 32 or 160 > 158 or 29 > 27??
Which dem dunces need lessons on. I would say Mars can teach, but he rass cannot be trusted on this, suh me guh tek the jab miself and do it fuh free!
THE position that the number of votes which carried the no-confidence motion against the Coalition Government is inadequate has begun to gain momentum with more attorneys-at-law coming forward to support the theory.
Deliberations on the issue emerged on Sunday when prominent local attorney-at-law, Nigel Hughes put forward his position on social media stating: âFor a no-confidence motion to pass and be valid, the motion has to enjoy more votes than one- half of the full House.â At the time the no-confidence motion was debated and passed, there were 65 sitting members of the National Assembly present, 33 of whom were represented by the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) + Alliance For Change (AFC). The remaining 32 belonged to the Peopleâs Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).
Former AFC member, Charrandas Persaud had voted in favour of the motion, resulting in its passage. However, Hughes is now saying that, mathematically, one-half of the House equals 32.5 members, which is highly impossible.
âThere is no such thing as a half member, so half of the House is 33 members. This is because you have to round up to identify half of the House,â he said, by which he meant taking the figure to the nearest whole number.
At a media briefing on Monday, Hughes said: âTo be defeated, whoever it is that brings the motion has to acquire 34 votes.â Ralph Ramkarran, another prominent local attorney, had back in November put forward similar arguments in a Stabroek News article.
I feel Nigel playing a dangerous game....I believe the plan here is to delay the 90 day election....it will rile up the base...they better not instigate people at this critical time.
I feel Nigel playing a dangerous game....I believe the plan here is to delay the 90 day election....it will rile up the base...they better not instigate people at this critical time.
That party don't care. They are the slo fiah mo fiah party when they don't get their way.
THE position that the number of votes which carried the no-confidence motion against the Coalition Government is inadequate has begun to gain momentum with more attorneys-at-law coming forward to support the theory.
Deliberations on the issue emerged on Sunday when prominent local attorney-at-law, Nigel Hughes put forward his position on social media stating: âFor a no-confidence motion to pass and be valid, the motion has to enjoy more votes than one- half of the full House.â At the time the no-confidence motion was debated and passed, there were 65 sitting members of the National Assembly present, 33 of whom were represented by the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) + Alliance For Change (AFC). The remaining 32 belonged to the Peopleâs Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).
Former AFC member, Charrandas Persaud had voted in favour of the motion, resulting in its passage. However, Hughes is now saying that, mathematically, one-half of the House equals 32.5 members, which is highly impossible.
âThere is no such thing as a half member, so half of the House is 33 members. This is because you have to round up to identify half of the House,â he said, by which he meant taking the figure to the nearest whole number.
At a media briefing on Monday, Hughes said: âTo be defeated, whoever it is that brings the motion has to acquire 34 votes.â Ralph Ramkarran, another prominent local attorney, had back in November put forward similar arguments in a Stabroek News article.
I feel Nigel playing a dangerous game....I believe the plan here is to delay the 90 day election....it will rile up the base...they better not instigate people at this critical time.
Nigel is an expert at instigating fires and riots.
Re-posting the full article with a focus on the statement by David Granger.
Nigel Hughes is simply blowing wild wind to seek attention.
The Speaker followed all the steps in a thorough and careful manner for this important decision. The constitution is quite clear on what should now happen ... succinctly; elections to be held within three months.
President David Granger meeting with members of his cabinet at Ministry of the Presidency
âĶgovât sought legal opinions on no-confidence vote âĶCabinet sub-committee to advise on way forward
FOLLOWING the passage of Friday nightâs no-confidence motion in the National Assembly, Cabinet has examined all of the legal and constitutional aspects of the vote and established a sub-committee to advise on this matter.
According to a statement attributed to Minister of State, Joseph Harmon, President David Granger on Monday convened special meetings of the Cabinet and the National Security Committee (NSC). During the meetings the President iterated the important role the Cabinet and the NSC play in the security, stability and good governance of Guyana. It was noted that Cabinet examined all of the legal and constitutional aspects of the vote in the National Assembly on Friday, December 21st.
That sub-committee will examine all the legal opinions available and report to Cabinet on Thursday, December 27th with recommendations on the way forward. âThe government wishes to give the full assurance to you the citizens that all necessary measures to ensure your safety and security are in place and that, in this regard, you go about your business in a confident manner,â the release said.
President David Granger on Monday morning, met with members of the National Security Committee (NSC) at the Ministry of the Presidency
President Granger assured the nation on Saturday that his administration will abide by the Constitution which stipulates that General Elections must be held within 90 days of a successful no-confidence motion. In an unsuspecting move Friday night which shocked the nation, Alliance For Change (AFC) Member of Parliament (MP) Charrandas Persaud threw his support behind the Parliamentary Oppositionâthe Peopleâs Progressive Party/C (PPP/C)âto pass a no-confidence motion against his government.
AFC forms a major part of the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) Government which holds a one-seat majority in the National Assembly. âWe will do everything necessary to facilitate the smooth functioning of General and Regional Elections bearing in mind the need for normal governmental functions to continue uninterrupted,â President Granger was quoted as saying. Article 106 (7) of the Constitution of Guyana states, âNotwithstanding its defeat, the government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine, and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the elections.â
The President said too that he is anxious to engage Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo on any concerns he may have. âMr. Jagdeo contacted the Minister of State and a meeting will be arranged as early as possible so that his concerns can be addressed,â the President added. President Granger said there is no need for confrontation.
Mits, you are yet to express your opinion on the AFC sticking with the PNC and expelling Patriot Charandass. Why the silence ?
er, I am not a member of any party.
Fair enough. Who did Jagdeo kicked to the curb again ? As far as I can remember, Moses and Ralph had political aspirations and resigned when it was not fulfilled. Nothing out of the ordinary here, this is politics.
I am specifically asking for your opinion that Moses and Ramjattan stuck with the PNC and expelled Patriot Charandass. What is your opinion ?
Of course, what yuh expect? Dem man will look at all legal means. When de legal means run out, den GT goh bun and de military go step in. It is a fight foh economic resource...coolie vs blackman. Yuh tink dem would a tek it without wan challenge? Jagan bun cane and do what he had to do. Every strategy gat different response. Ayoo didnt write dem down pon de blackboard in Freedom House? Hey hey hey...
You are trying to wage a psychological warfare on those opposed to the regime by playing on their fears. Your fruitless work with the coalition's campaign can explain your discontent. TK bhai, tomorrow is another day. Be respectful. Be hopeful. Beware of the powet of the people.
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
Welcome to the Original Guyanese Discussion Forums, first established in 1996. Here you can discuss, ask questions or generally debate anything related to politics, movies, music, health or just gyaff away your day/night here. A note of warning, the Political forum is not for the faint of heart. We do have some rules, so please adhere to them .
Welcome to the Original Guyanese Discussion Forums, first established in 1996. Here you can discuss, ask questions or generally debate anything related to politics, movies, music, health or just gyaff away your day/night here.
Please note while you do have free access to our Forums, the Political Forum will now be a Paid Membership Forum. What does this mean? To write in the Political Forum you must be a paying member. The fee is $25.00 US per year and is non refundable. Payment can be done through PayPal. Membership is not automatically renewed and you can cancel anytime We do have some rules, so please adhere to them.
President David Granger meeting with members of his cabinet at Ministry of the Presidency
