Skip to main content

Mansoor Nadir’s statement on the validity of the no confidence motion shows the PPP is clutching onto straws to hold on to power

August 27, 2014 | By | Filed Under Letters 

Dear Editor, So the People’s Progressive Party Civic [PPP/C] is once again out to besmirch the integrity of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) since their man is no longer in charge to “convert the vote counts into seats”  in their favor by using a formula that is alien to the rule of the election law.  He was caught red handed in 2011 and was exposed and criticized for trying to give the PPP a one seat majority  in the House despite the fact that the opposition had obtained 51 percent of the votes cast. One can recall in 2006, this PPP man at GECOM actually stole a seat from the AFC at Linden and gave it to top PPP man in Parliament. So he was caught not once but twice and yet the PPP continues to support his deceitful actions . Having set the records straight, we are cautioning the public that the PPP/C is up to no good when they claim that they found 18 persons living at the same address in Georgetown and that this is evidence of padding of the electoral list.  What evidence? Who is padding the electoral list? Why is the PPP so paranoid? If the leaders of the PPP do not know that there are dozens of people living in the same dwelling, then they have and continue to ignore the massive poverty they have inflicted on the masses that they have abandoned. Further, their economic policies have not only increased the poverty level among the poor and the working class but have also made their friends and relatives richer and the poor much poorer. This is one of the reasons why the poor have to live in bulk or clusters in one dwelling. Such clumsy and illiterate statement spewed by none other than the General Secretary of the PPP/C is designed to influence a desired outcome. He seems to be even willing to fabricate stories that fraud is being perpetuated to deny the PPP/C an absolute majority.  Mr. Rohee and his Freedom House gang ought to know that such wicked utterances and electioneering propaganda are unacceptable to the people and GECOM will stand for none of it. Jump high or jump low, statements issued by General Secretary are not credible and the people including their own supporters are fed up with their untruths and corrupt practices. We were reliably informed that the more schooled PPP leaders have distanced themselves from Mr. Rohee’s bunkum statement about padding elections. His focus should be on safeguarding the lives and properties of the citizens of Guyana from the armed bandits and not spreading electioneering propaganda. If Mr. Rohee believes that making unintellectual statements about the number of people registered to vote or the number of people living at the same address would provide the trappings of legality and legitimacy to support the PPP agenda of bamboozling GECOM and deceive the people, then he is a fool. It will backfire on the PPP because it is seen as an attack on GECOM’s integrity. And GECOM’s statement that it is ready for both Local Government Elections and General Elections shows that the President does not know what he was talking about when he said that GECOM is more ready for General Elections than Local Government Elections. It would have been much wiser for him to consult with GECOM officials before issuing such wild and reckless statements. But then again, what else can one expect from a regime that is clutching on to straws. The PPP cabal is fully aware that they will be defeated at the polls so they are doing everything in the power not to have elections including Mansoor Nadir’s silly statement that if all 65 MPs are not present in Parliament, then the no  confidence motion is unconstitutional. The PPP/C today is clearly not interested in one person –one vote or a fair democratic process; they are only interested in obtaining power, rape the treasury and destroy the country’s rain forests. Why would Mr. Rohee claim that 18 people living in the same yard is a cause for alarm? Has he never visited Albouystown or Tiger Bay where in some cases, more than 30 persons collect their mails at one address and where people sleep in shifts because of a lack of beds and rooms due to the massive poverty created by him and the Freedom House gang.  This sort of poverty has become widespread and is now standardized in the ghettos under the PPP/C rule. But this petty bourgeoisie in the PPP/C Leadership camp are in their Pradoville castles and beach front palaces and thus cannot comprehend that there are very poor and disadvantaged people who live in these sorts of depressed and wretched conditions.  But it is even more disgusting to learn that some in the PPP continue to ignore such a high level of poverty among the masses when in the past they have accused the PNC of doing the same thing. What hypocrisy? They seem to be unaware of the reality of the poor and vulnerable in the ghettos. This perceived ignorance of the reality on the ground exposes how much the PPP leaders are disconnected from the poor and the working class in Guyana that they cannot fathom that 18 persons live in one yard. The fact that they have become very wealthy overnight and are busy trying to obtain more wealth through the treasury and in the form of kick-backs from contractors prove that they are content to see the poor live in poverty and misery. Shame on them for trying to spin people’s poverty for political convenience. Asquith Rose and Harish Singh

Replies sorted oldest to newest

No-confidence motion…Nadir’s interpretation of clause “erroneous”- Greenidge

August 27, 2014 | By | Filed Under News 

As the time draws nearer for the no-confidence motion to be voted on, so do the fears, speculation and “worrying

Carl Greenidge

Carl Greenidge

interpretations of the law” by some political figures. On a recently held radio programme, one government official disclosed his “revelation and interpretation of a clause in the Constitution” as it relates to the no-confidence motion. PPP Parliamentarian, Manzoor Nadir expressed that a clause in the Constitution outlines that “all elected members of parliament” must be present in the National Assembly when the “highly anticipated” no-confidence motion is put to a vote. The Public Accounts Committee member asserted that if a Parliamentarian from either side of the House is not present, then a vote on the motion could not be made. The programme saw commentaries by Head of Blue Caps Clinton Urling and A Partnership for National Unity (APNU)’s Shadow Minister of Agriculture and the Environment Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine. Urling expressed that he was not aware of the “newfound clause” as mentioned by Nadir and said that it underscores the need for research but in the end, it comes down to interpretation and the word of the Judiciary. But Carl Greenidge, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee came forward to debunk the “silly and irrational” twists made to a clause of the Constitution in relation to the motion. Greenidge, before elaborating on his point, said that Nadir simply, “has to come better than that.” “Having heard previous statements by the Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, President Donald Ramotar and Cabinet Secretary, Dr. Roger Luncheon all of which hinted of the existence of mysterious requirements or procedures pertaining to the No-Confidence Motion,  I have been waiting to see what the PPP would come up with. If Nadir’s comments are the full extent of the mystery to which they were alluding, then as the fellows say in the street, “they have to come again” for Nadir’s views are erroneous and possibly pernicious,” the former Finance Minister stated. Greenidge explained that the revised Constitution has three sets of references to voting in the Assembly. “First, determination of the outcome of a ballot shall be by a majority. Majorities mentioned are either simple or two-thirds of all the members. A two-thirds majority is required in two circumstances if a vote is to be carried; a confidence motion and the declaration of a state of emergency or war.” With regard to no-confidence, actually ‘confidence motions’, the APNU parliamentarian stated that Article 106 (6&7) of the Constitution 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. Notwithstanding 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 election.”

PPP MP, Manzoor Nadir

PPP MP, Manzoor Nadir

Greenidge then made the point that two-thirds of 65 is 43. Therefore, absence from the Assembly makes no difference to that requirement. He added, “But is that what is meant by the all members? These references to all the elected members need to be and have up to now been interpreted in the context of the specific article of the Constitution which deals with voting in the Assembly.” Greenidge pointed out as well that the Constitution states that as it relates to voting, it says 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.” Greenidge said that in law, perhaps more than any other discipline, it is imperative to read the entire reference document before drawing a conclusion about meaning.  He said that it is inconceivable that drafting would have been so poor that the temporary illness or death of one Member of Parliament could frustrate the Assembly’s declaration of a state of emergency. “Since the wording of the phrases on voting are all the same, it is for Mr Nadir to identify a single occasion when the interpretation of “all the elected members” has ever been determined with reference to those absent,” Greenidge expressed. As it relates to Urling’s contention on research, Greenidge said that indeed, “research should be done before accepting gratuitous and obviously self-serving interpretations of the law, proffered by Nadir and his colleagues. It is a very simple matter and has been tested many times. An understanding of Article 168 requires no resort to the Judiciary.  It never has.” He concluded that the matter of voting on a no-confidence motion is not at all complicated.

Mitwah

My goodness-thieves have no shame. Even black pat can't comaflogue the crooks. The desire to decieve oozes out of them like they rotting from the inside.

 

Democracy demands wisdom. Especially, when one is dealing with communists. 

 

I am grateful that we as a people still have men and women of character.

 

Certainly, the ptoteges of the Jagans demonstates every day in their propaganda the legacy of their comrade leader. Shite, I doan think they ever cared three hoots about him.

S

Add Reply

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