No reversal…No-Confidence motion stands – Speaker tells National Assembly minus Opposition
Jan 04, 2019, https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...ly-minus-opposition/
The Motion of No-Confidence against the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) government remains valid, and the government has been urged by the Speaker of the House, Dr. Barton Scotland to work diligently with the Opposition to execute the mandate of the constitution, in this regard.
The Speaker of the House said that the Attorney General, Basil Williams, asked him to reverse the Motion, and it caused him to consider the arguments placed before him.
Knowing that the focus of this parliamentary sitting was for the government to attempt a review of the No-Confidence Motion, no opposition members of Parliament were present at yesterday’s proceedings. However, scores of government supporters demonstrated outside of Parliament, decked in green, bearing banners of the APNU+AFC Coalition.
Speaker of the House, Dr. Barton Scotland (inset), delivering his remarks yesterday in the Opposition’s absence.
Dr. Scotland told government MPs that since the motion was carried, he received solicited and unsolicited information “from diverse sources” of case and practice law, concerning similar situations playing out in other Commonwealth countries.
The information received, Scotland added, caused him to have doubts whether the motion was carried, even though he declared it as such on December 21, last.
The first argument was that the vote of No-Confidence requires an absolute majority of 34 members, instead of 33 to be declared as carried, or as he explained, half of 65 plus one, rounded to the nearest whole number.
Scotland said though this contention could be viewed as having the support of article 168 of the Constitution, which provides that “…all questions proposed for decision in the National Assembly shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting,” it does not.
He explained further that this is because the No-Confidence Motion is governed by a separate article; Article 106(6), which states that “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 second argument was that Charrandass Persaud, who voted in support of the Motion of No-Confidence against the government, is unqualified to be a member of the National Assembly by virtue of his conduct. The conduct in question is that Persaud, by becoming a citizen of Canada, swore allegiance to that country and, in doing so, breached the Constitution of Guyana.
The Attorney General, Basil Williams, had raised the contention, days before, that Article 155 (1) (a) of the Constitution, states: “No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly who is, by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power or State”.
The third argument is that Persaud is not constitutionally allowed to abandon support of the list, which he was placed on, that of APNU+AFC, and support another list, yet still retain MP status.
Though Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo, had said that the Speaker does not have the power to review or reverse his ruling, Scotland said that the Speaker has the authority to revisit rulings he has rendered, and he may reverse them, if he sees that they should not stand.
However, he said that he will not reverse the motion because the arguments presented to him are not compelling enough for such an action. He said, “The Speaker on this occasion, and without [further adieu], declines the invitation to act in reversal.”
On the matter of Persaud’s conduct, the Speaker said that there are competing views, as well as multiple interrelating provisions of the Constitution, which need to be examined. Scotland explained that the issues put forward encouraged him to make a choice between divergent interpretations of the Constitution, applicable to a No-Confidence Motion. As a result, he refused to overstep into the territory of the Judiciary.
The Speaker of the House urged that the efforts of the government and opposition be spent on bringing the dictation of the Constitution to fruition, since no such discussion has taken place yet.
The Speaker said, “It has been my preference and practice to endeavour to find resolution of any issue which may affect the procedures and practice of Parliament without third party intervention. I must tell you Honourable Members that the issues which we now face, cause us to look outside of Parliament to find answers,” implying that the next step would be to take the matter to the Judiciary.
He then said, “Full, final and complete settlement of these issues by a Court of competent jurisdiction will place beyond doubt any question, which may exist and serve to give guidance to the Speaker and to the National Assembly for the future.”