Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

 

 

‘Charrandass was a ‘usurper’

 
0
6485
Share on Facebook
 
Tweet on Twitter
  
Showing support: Government ministers showed up at the Caribbean Court of Justice on Thursday for the hearing of the no-confidence vote case. From Left are: Minister of Public Service Tabitha Sarabo-Halley; Minister of Social Cohesion, Dr. George Norton; Minister of Education, Nicolette Henry and Minister of Business, Haimraj Rajkumar.

…CCJ told constitution contains strong anti-defection provisions
…Belizean SC says dual citizen Persaud ‘was never elected’ to House

By Svetlana Marshall in Port of Spain

BELIZEAN Senior Counsel, Eamon Courtenay told the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), on Thursday, that Guyana’s Constitution is embedded with an ‘Anti-defection’ provision that prevents Members of Parliament from voting against the lists from which their names were extracted. He also called expelled MP, Charrandass Persaud, a ‘usurper’ owing to his dual citizenship status, contending that he was never an elected member of the House and that his vote should be rendered null and void.

The Senior Counsel, who is representing Attorney General Basil Williams, S.C in the consolidated appeals challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal to invalidate the Vote of No-Confidence Motion, made the comments in a courtroom filled with attorneys and Guyana’s ministers of Government.

Crossing the floor 
Courtenay, in addressing the issue of ‘crossing the floor,’ on day one of the hearing into the no-confidence motion at the regional court, stated that: “The system in Guyana provides for an election of parties. Parties are given seats. There are lists submitted by the parties. The Constitution of Guyana, Article 156, says, if you intend to not support your list, you must make a declaration to the Speaker (of the National Assembly) in writing,” the Belizean Senior Counsel submitted to the court.

He asked the judges of Guyana’s highest court to consider the intent of Article 156 (A), and compare its requirements, with the action of Charrandass Persaud, who, while as a Government Member of Parliament, used his seat to vote against the Government and the list from which his name was extracted without issuing a declaration.

He said MPs are required to vote in favour of their party in keeping with policy decisions, in the case of Government, made at the level of Cabinet. He said once a member no longer supports a list, he must declare same to the Speaker or the Leader of the List in keeping with Article 156.

Is this system a charade or Government a rubber stamp? “No!” The Senior Counsel said as he responded to questions posed by the judges. “The debate, the differences take place in the Cabinet, in the political caucus. It is resolved by the party that has been elected by the country, to govern the country. They have that mandate, they are implementing. They have drawn up their motions, they have drawn up their acts and legislation, they debate it internally in Cabinet, they reshape it, they reform it, they go to the political caucus, if you have back benchers, you get them on board, argue about it, agree, then go to parliament and we implement,” he explained.

Imposter 
In his more than one hour long oral submission, the Belizean Senior Counsel also shot down arguments made by PPP lawyer, Trinidadian Douglas Mendes, who upon representing the Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo, told the Court that the Charrandass Persaud’s vote in the National Assembly was saved by the De Facto Doctrine, though he was a dual citizen in the House, in total breach of the Constitution.

The de facto doctrine validates an action on the basis that the person in question did not know that a provision was breached. But, Senior Counsel Courtenay, in debunking the arguments made by Mendes, provided evidence that Persaud took an oath to be elected a Member of Parliament, knowing that he is a dual citizen.

Describing Persaud as an imposter and usurper, Senior Counsel Courtenay pointed out he (Charrandass Persaud) signed a Statutory Declaration, prior to the 2015 Regional and General Elections, that he was aware of Article 53 and Article 155 – of which the latter prohibits Members of Parliament from being dual citizens.

In support of his position, the Belizean Senior Counsel noted that not only is Persaud an attorney-at-law, but also just before and after signing the declaration, he travelled on his Canadian passport. He concluded that Persaud was fully aware that he was not eligible to be a Member of Parliament but, nonetheless, took up a seat in the National Assembly, in total breach of the Constitution.

Asked by the court what would be the implications of all the votes Persaud cast for the government which helped it pass bills and budgets, Courtenay responded that the court would have to issue temporary orders out of necessity to save approved budgets, tax measures after which Parliament would have to legitimise what has been temporarily made legal.

Serial violator 
“The matter before this court arises from a person who is a serial violator of the Constitution of Guyana and who the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to benefit from Constitutional violations by Mr. Persaud in order to bring down the Government of Guyana that is led by a party that Mr. Persaud is elected on,” Courtenay told the court. Senior Counsel Courtenay, therefore, asked the CCJ to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeal and rule that the No-Confidence Motion was invalid.

Confidence vote 
Meanwhile, Courtenay also argued that the Opposition could not have tabled a Motion of No-Confidence against the Government because it simply is not provided for in the Constitution of Guyana. He told the panel of five judges led by President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders that there are three types of motion.

Referencing the submission made by Richard Kelly to the House of Commons Library, the Belizean Senior Counsel explained that there are ‘Confidence Motions’ initiated by the Government; ‘No-Confidence Motions’ initiated by the Opposition; and other Motions, which, because of the particular circumstances, can be regarded as motions of censure or confidence.

Trinidadian Attorney-at-Law Douglas Mendes

Guyana’s Constitution, he pointed out, only creates provision for a Motion of Confidence as provided for in Article 106 (6) and not a Motion of No-Confidence. He said while it is a fact that the 1966 Constitution of Guyana had made provision for a Motion of No-Confidence, the 1980 Constitution did not include such a provision.

It was pointed out that the Constitution, by way of an amendment in 2000, included provisions for a Vote of Confidence under Article 106 (6) and (7). Underscoring that there is clear difference between a Motion of Confidence and a Motion of No-Confidence, the Belizean Senior Counsel submitted to the CJJ that Guyana’s Constitution, as it is now, does not cater for a Motion of No-Confidence, and such a motion, should not have been entertained in the National Assembly on the night of December 21, 2018 or on any other day.

Article 106 (6) states: “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.”

With the Constitution limiting the Parliament of Guyana to only a Motion of Confidence, the Senior Counsel said only the Government can table a Motion of Confidence in the National Assembly. In the current construct, he submitted that it is possible for a partner within the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) Coalition Government to move a Motion of Confidence to test the House’s confidence in the Government.

“If you have a Coalition Government, and the Coalition partner says, we entered into Government with you under an agreement that you were going to do certain things, we are now half way through the term and you have not done these things, when are you going to do it? Give me two months, and they don’t, it is entirely opened through Article 171 for that Coalition partner to move a motion of Confidence,” Senior Counsel Courtenay said as he presented the CCJ with a scenario in which a Motion of Confidence could be brought by a Government or its partner.

In absence of a coalition government in power, the Belizean Senior Counsel submitted to the court that there would be no room for Article 106 (6) and (7) to be activated – maintaining that only the framers of the Constitution of Guyana did not make provision for the Opposition to table a Motion of No-Confidence against the Government.

Risk of defeat 
Mendes, who appeared in association with Anil Nandlall, Marcia Nadir, Chandratesh Satram, Manoj Narayan, Kandace Bharath and Devesh Maharaj, told the court that because “Vote of Confidence” is not defined or characterised in the Constitution of Guyana, it could only mean that it was intended to be a Vote of No-Confidence intended to bring down the government.

He questioned the rationale behind a Government, submitting to the House a Motion of Confidence, when it would be at risk of being defeated. While he agreed with the Belizean Senior Counsel that the Section 37 (1) of the 1966 Constitution only provided a No-Confidence Motion, Mendes rejected the notion that the current Motion of Confidence embedded in the Constitution is intended only for the government. He argued that both the Government and Opposition can move a Motion of Confidence or No-Confidence with the intention of testing the House’s Confidence in the Government.

On the issue of crossing the floor, Mendes told the Court that Article 156 laid out clear steps for a person to cease to be a Member of Parliament. On the night of December 21, none of the steps were taken. He submitted that Charrandass Persaud never made a declaration, and as such, he remained a member at that point. He also submitted that the former MP, before being recalled, had no knowledge that it was unconstitutional to be a MP with dual citizenship. On that basis, Mendes said Charrandass Persaud was no usurper, and his vote was validated by Article 165 (2) of the Constitution.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Lots of spaghetti!  Seems no one, not the Government, opposition nor speaker understood the constitution until after the NCV. They are trying to build a case be what’s not there, the best explanations to the intent are written between the lines.  

Maybe they should ask the US Congress to debate the constitution of Guyana!

PNC funny!

FM

A few years ago under ppp watch I argued that govt should not be  owning any news papers. I got bused down by the slopcan crew. Its not about Miss Marshall but the real elephant in the room, the govt who controls chronicle. 

FM
Drugb posted:

A few years ago under ppp watch I argued that govt should not be  owning any news papers. I got bused down by the slopcan crew. Its not about Miss Marshall but the real elephant in the room, the govt who controls chronicle. 

Don’t worry, soon we will have a baby elephant in the room, Irfaan.  

FM
Baseman posted:

Lots of spaghetti!  Seems no one, not the Government, opposition nor speaker understood the constitution until after the NCV. They are trying to build a case be what’s not there, the best explanations to the intent are written between the lines.  

Maybe they should ask the US Congress to debate the constitution of Guyana!

PNC funny!

I think the PNC is going run it course, no early elections due to the NCV.

I can see Jagdeo challenging with another Court Case on all dual citizen motions passed in the parliament.

What a can of worms, the entire government including the oppostion wearing their funeral clothes and in procession to bury the country and its ppl.

As the Bajan says, "Politicians in robes."

S
Baseman posted:
Drugb posted:

A few years ago under ppp watch I argued that govt should not be  owning any news papers. I got bused down by the slopcan crew. Its not about Miss Marshall but the real elephant in the room, the govt who controls chronicle. 

Don’t worry, soon we will have a baby elephant in the room, Irfaan.  

I just hope that his weight don't affect his brain as many are suggesting via fat shaming. 

FM
Drugb posted:

A few years ago under ppp watch I argued that govt should not be  owning any news papers. I got bused down by the slopcan crew. Its not about Miss Marshall but the real elephant in the room, the govt who controls chronicle. 

You are like trump,,,always needing to pat yourself on the back for imaginary accomplishments. 

FM
Drugb posted:
Baseman posted:
Drugb posted:

A few years ago under ppp watch I argued that govt should not be  owning any news papers. I got bused down by the slopcan crew. Its not about Miss Marshall but the real elephant in the room, the govt who controls chronicle. 

Don’t worry, soon we will have a baby elephant in the room, Irfaan.  

I just hope that his weight don't affect his brain as many are suggesting via fat shaming. 

Nah, you should know, fat don’t really affect the brain function!  Other things, but not brain!

FM
seignet posted:
Baseman posted:

Lots of spaghetti!  Seems no one, not the Government, opposition nor speaker understood the constitution until after the NCV. They are trying to build a case be what’s not there, the best explanations to the intent are written between the lines.  

Maybe they should ask the US Congress to debate the constitution of Guyana!

PNC funny!

I think the PNC is going run it course, no early elections due to the NCV.

I can see Jagdeo challenging with another Court Case on all dual citizen motions passed in the parliament.

What a can of worms, the entire government including the oppostion wearing their funeral clothes and in procession to bury the country and its ppl.

As the Bajan says, "Politicians in robes."

This shyte will spiral out of control.  This could trigger some type of foreign intervention!

FM
seignet posted:
Baseman posted:

Lots of spaghetti!  Seems no one, not the Government, opposition nor speaker understood the constitution until after the NCV. They are trying to build a case be what’s not there, the best explanations to the intent are written between the lines.  

Maybe they should ask the US Congress to debate the constitution of Guyana!

PNC funny!

I think the PNC is going run it course, no early elections due to the NCV.

I can see Jagdeo challenging with another Court Case on all dual citizen motions passed in the parliament.

What a can of worms, the entire government including the oppostion wearing their funeral clothes and in procession to bury the country and its ppl.

As the Bajan says, "Politicians in robes."

From the inception of the 1980 Constitution, Article 155 (1) (a) states, swearing allegiance to foreign state disqualifies a person to become Member of the National Assembly. Amendment was made to the article ,by act 14 of 2000, it was not changed.

Under the PPP tenure patchwork was done to the Constitution, apparently it seems they are clueless of the amendments, a case in point is Article 156, amended by Act no.22 of 2007.

Some posters here shifting the blame of clueless to the PNC tun APNU.

see attachment in pdf

1980 Constitution.

1980_art_155

1980_art_155_amend

Amendment act 14 of 2000

Attachments

Images (2)
  • 1980_art_155
  • 1980_art_155_amend
Files (1)
Django
Last edited by Django
Django posted:
seignet posted:
Baseman posted:

Lots of spaghetti!  Seems no one, not the Government, opposition nor speaker understood the constitution until after the NCV. They are trying to build a case be what’s not there, the best explanations to the intent are written between the lines.  

Maybe they should ask the US Congress to debate the constitution of Guyana!

PNC funny!

I think the PNC is going run it course, no early elections due to the NCV.

I can see Jagdeo challenging with another Court Case on all dual citizen motions passed in the parliament.

What a can of worms, the entire government including the oppostion wearing their funeral clothes and in procession to bury the country and its ppl.

As the Bajan says, "Politicians in robes."

From the inception of the 1980 Constitution, Article 155 (1) (a) states, swearing allegiance to foreign state disqualifies a person to become Member of the National Assembly. Amendment was made to the article ,by act 14 of 2000, it was not changed.

Under the PPP tenure patchwork was done to the Constitution, apparently it seems they are clueless of the amendments, a case in point is Article 156, amended by Act no.22 of 2007.

see attachment in pdf

1980 Constitution.

1980_art_155

1980_art_155_amend

Amendment act 14 of 2000

So why did both sides accept and had dual citizens in their ranks? 

Given it was the accepted norm on both sides, enforcement will need to be done on a go-forward basis!

FM
Baseman posted:

So why did both sides accept and had dual citizens in their ranks? 

Given it was the accepted norm on both sides, enforcement will need to be done on a go-forward basis!

Correct, they know about the clause and perform an illegal action.

Wondering under Forbes Burnham tenure, if there was any dual citizens MP.

Django
Baseman posted:
Django posted:
seignet posted:
Baseman posted:

Lots of spaghetti!  Seems no one, not the Government, opposition nor speaker understood the constitution until after the NCV. They are trying to build a case be what’s not there, the best explanations to the intent are written between the lines.  

Maybe they should ask the US Congress to debate the constitution of Guyana!

PNC funny!

I think the PNC is going run it course, no early elections due to the NCV.

I can see Jagdeo challenging with another Court Case on all dual citizen motions passed in the parliament.

What a can of worms, the entire government including the oppostion wearing their funeral clothes and in procession to bury the country and its ppl.

As the Bajan says, "Politicians in robes."

From the inception of the 1980 Constitution, Article 155 (1) (a) states, swearing allegiance to foreign state disqualifies a person to become Member of the National Assembly. Amendment was made to the article ,by act 14 of 2000, it was not changed.

Under the PPP tenure patchwork was done to the Constitution, apparently it seems they are clueless of the amendments, a case in point is Article 156, amended by Act no.22 of 2007.

see attachment in pdf

1980 Constitution.

1980_art_155

1980_art_155_amend

Amendment act 14 of 2000

So why did both sides accept and had dual citizens in their ranks? 

Given it was the accepted norm on both sides, enforcement will need to be done on a go-forward basis!

I don't think the judges will give much credence to this matter because they too like you did will conclude it is the norm in Guyana. One judge did get an admission from one of the lawyers that this practice has been around in Guyana since the 70s. Although at least one of the judges did also get the admission from at least one of the lawyers that Guyana's constitution is unique. 

FM
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

So why did both sides accept and had dual citizens in their ranks? 

Given it was the accepted norm on both sides, enforcement will need to be done on a go-forward basis!

Correct, they know about the clause and perform an illegal action.

Wondering under Forbes Burnham tenure, if there was any dual citizens MP.

Burnham had duals!!  You clutching at straws banna 

FM
Baseman posted:
Django posted:
seignet posted:
Baseman posted:

Lots of spaghetti!  Seems no one, not the Government, opposition nor speaker understood the constitution until after the NCV. They are trying to build a case be what’s not there, the best explanations to the intent are written between the lines.  

Maybe they should ask the US Congress to debate the constitution of Guyana!

PNC funny!

I think the PNC is going run it course, no early elections due to the NCV.

I can see Jagdeo challenging with another Court Case on all dual citizen motions passed in the parliament.

What a can of worms, the entire government including the oppostion wearing their funeral clothes and in procession to bury the country and its ppl.

As the Bajan says, "Politicians in robes."

From the inception of the 1980 Constitution, Article 155 (1) (a) states, swearing allegiance to foreign state disqualifies a person to become Member of the National Assembly. Amendment was made to the article ,by act 14 of 2000, it was not changed.

Under the PPP tenure patchwork was done to the Constitution, apparently it seems they are clueless of the amendments, a case in point is Article 156, amended by Act no.22 of 2007.

see attachment in pdf

1980 Constitution.

1980_art_155

1980_art_155_amend

Amendment act 14 of 2000

So why did both sides accept and had dual citizens in their ranks? 

Given it was the accepted norm on both sides, enforcement will need to be done on a go-forward basis!

Yuh think they would know the constitution? Charrandass teaching dem some lessons. 

When Trump invades Venezuela he should continue on into Guyana. Dem stupid politicians doan deserve to govern. 

S
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

So why did both sides accept and had dual citizens in their ranks? 

Given it was the accepted norm on both sides, enforcement will need to be done on a go-forward basis!

Correct, they know about the clause and perform an illegal action.

Wondering under Forbes Burnham tenure, if there was any dual citizens MP.

If both sides knowingly do it, then no one was disadvantaged.   This is a red herring.  If it was an issue, raise it. Don’t embrace the practice then change your tune when it suits you!

FM
ksazma posted:
 

I don't think the judges will give much credence to this matter because they too like you did will conclude it is the norm in Guyana.

One judge did get an admission from one of the lawyers that this practice has been around in Guyana since the 70s.

Although at least one of the judges did also get the admission from at least one of the lawyers that Guyana's constitution is unique. 

The Judge said the Guyana Constitution is unique after Datadin said it's a simple documented.

By the way pay attention to petition of Crossing the Floor or voting against Party List, bear in mind Guyana Electoral system is a close list.

Here is a good read

http://www.partylaw.leidenuniv.nl/uploads/wp0209.pdf

Django
Last edited by Django
Baseman posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

So why did both sides accept and had dual citizens in their ranks? 

Given it was the accepted norm on both sides, enforcement will need to be done on a go-forward basis!

Correct, they know about the clause and perform an illegal action.

Wondering under Forbes Burnham tenure, if there was any dual citizens MP.

If both sides knowingly do it, then no one was disadvantaged.   This is a red herring.  If it was an issue, raise it. Don’t embrace the practice then change your tune when it suits you!

Had to come to an end, they got caught with their pants down.

Check the document in link posted above, take a read.

Django
Last edited by Django
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
 

I don't think the judges will give much credence to this matter because they too like you did will conclude it is the norm in Guyana.

One judge did get an admission from one of the lawyers that this practice has been around in Guyana since the 70s.

Although at least one of the judges did also get the admission from at least one of the lawyers that Guyana's constitution is unique. 

The Judge said the Guyana Constitution is unique after Datadin said it's a simple documented.

By the way pay attention to petition of Crossing the Floor or voting against Party List, bear in mind Guyana Electoral system is a close list.

Here is a good read

http://www.partylaw.leidenuniv.nl/uploads/wp0209.pdf

Banna, I don't have time to read that whole paper. 

As mentioned above, I think that 156 is the biggest challenge that the PPP will need to overcome in order to overturn the appellate court decision although 156 was not what the PPP are challenging from the appellate court decision. But I can see the judges deciding that it is not up to them to enforce the constitution of Guyana if Guyanese aren't going to do it themselves. They may just limit their consideration to the arithmetic challenge and decide that 33 is indeed the majority of an absolute Assembly vote of 65. Indeed when one of the lawyers sought to get the judges to set rules for GECOM, the judges declined stating that they will only interpret the law.

FM
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
 

I don't think the judges will give much credence to this matter because they too like you did will conclude it is the norm in Guyana.

One judge did get an admission from one of the lawyers that this practice has been around in Guyana since the 70s.

Although at least one of the judges did also get the admission from at least one of the lawyers that Guyana's constitution is unique. 

The Judge said the Guyana Constitution is unique after Datadin said it's a simple documented.

By the way pay attention to petition of Crossing the Floor or voting against Party List, bear in mind Guyana Electoral system is a close list.

Here is a good read

http://www.partylaw.leidenuniv.nl/uploads/wp0209.pdf

Django, did the constitution has the word absolute majority? 

FM
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

If both sides knowingly do it, then no one was disadvantaged.   This is a red herring.  If it was an issue, raise it. Don’t embrace the practice then change your tune when it suits you!

Had to come to an end, they got caught with their pants down.

Check the document in link posted above, take a read.

Banna, get with it.  What's it with you and this eureka moment?  Yes, that was in the document yet both parties chose not to enforce it for whatever reasons.  Now it's an issue because it's convenient!

This is a red-herring.  It will likely be adhered to going forward.  Contextualize what you reading and stop giving yourself false hope!

FM

Actually it is a fool who was hired by Williams who introduced the word absolute and his argument was because the motion is of a serious nature. So William got what he paid for.

FM
ksazma posted:

Actually it is a fool who was hired by Williams who introduced the word absolute and his argument was because the motion is of a serious nature. So William got what he paid for.

But it does not matter.  33 is an absolute majority in the Guyana context.

There is Absolute

There is Simple and

There is Super!

FM
Baseman posted:
ksazma posted:

Actually it is a fool who was hired by Williams who introduced the word absolute and his argument was because the motion is of a serious nature. So William got what he paid for.

But it does not matter.  33 is an absolute majority in the Guyana context.

There is Absolute

There is Simple and

There is Super!

Well, the fool paid Alexis for the answer he desired. The trouble is what he desired is grossly incorrect. 

FM
Baseman posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

If both sides knowingly do it, then no one was disadvantaged.   This is a red herring.  If it was an issue, raise it. Don’t embrace the practice then change your tune when it suits you!

Had to come to an end, they got caught with their pants down.

Check the document in link posted above, take a read.

Banna, get with it.  What's it with you and this eureka moment?  Yes, that was in the document yet both parties chose not to enforce it for whatever reasons.  Now it's an issue because it's convenient!

This is a red-herring.  It will likely be adhered to going forward.  Contextualize what you reading and stop giving yourself false hope!

Not giving false hope, i am looking at the issue on both sides.

Take note this is the first time, that piece of legislation of confidence was tested by a vote. Actually it was crafted to cut Presidential Powers.

Django
Last edited by Django
Dave posted:
seignet posted:

I think Guyana needs Trump to run the place.

Trump hand may end up in flabby BT Amana underwear. 

Banna, even as gross as Trump is, this seems like a hugely ghastly scenario. 😀

FM

Yhis Staff reporter was compensayed by the JACKASSES in the PNC who went there for No FRIGGIN REASON BUT to spent Taxpayers money. These ANIMALS were at the best Hotel ordering the best FOOD for what, look at Basil being AN ASS??????????

Nehru
Nehru posted:

Yhis Staff reporter was compensayed by the JACKASSES in the PNC who went there for No FRIGGIN REASON BUT to spent Taxpayers money.

These ANIMALS were at the best Hotel ordering the best FOOD for what, look at Basil being AN ASS??????????

Naah Nehru bhai, they went to see if Basil can get higher than that level.

FM
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

Banna, get with it.  What's it with you and this eureka moment?  Yes, that was in the document yet both parties chose not to enforce it for whatever reasons.  Now it's an issue because it's convenient!

This is a red-herring.  It will likely be adhered to going forward.  Contextualize what you reading and stop giving yourself false hope!

Not giving false hope, i am looking at the issue on both sides.

Take note this is the first time, that piece of legislation of confidence was tested by a vote. Actually it was crafted to cut Presidential Powers.

Was that intended as a joke which just went bad?

FM
ksazma posted:
Dave posted:
seignet posted:

I think Guyana needs Trump to run the place.

Trump hand may end up in flabby BT Amana underwear. 

Banna, even as gross as Trump is, this seems like a hugely ghastly scenario. 😀

Trumpskayovsky will grab at any woman.

FM
Django posted:
Dave posted:

Django, did the constitution has the word absolute majority? 

That's all you can come with ?

It’s a straight forward question that needs an answer if you can provide one. 

FM
Dave posted:
Django posted:
Dave posted:

Django, did the constitution has the word absolute majority? 

That's all you can come with ?

It’s a straight forward question that needs an answer if you can provide one. 

Please do some work and research the definition of "Majority" in Government and Constitutions.

Here are some info to start with

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/p...es/supermajority.php

Australia

Both the Australian House of Representatives and Senate have rules that enable motions to be moved for the suspension of standing orders.[1]  Such motions may be used to change the order of business before the relevant house,[2] or to permit the introduction of bills and their passage without delay,[3] among other matters.[4]  If motions to suspend standing orders are moved without notice, then an “absolute majority” of members must vote in favor of the motion.[5]  This means that more than half of the total number of members of the relevant house must vote in favor of the motion, as opposed to a simple majority where only a majority of those present for the vote must vote in favor of the motion.[6]

However, most motions to suspend standing orders are moved by a special type of notice called a “contingent notice” in order to avoid the need to obtain the agreement of an absolute majority of the house.  Such motions only require the agreement of a simple majority.[7]  In addition, other mechanisms (referred to as the “guillotine”) that do not require the agreement of an absolute majority are available to government ministers with respect to placing time limits on debates for bills that are declared urgent.[8]

Django
Last edited by Django
Django posted:
Dave posted:
Django posted:
Dave posted:

Django, did the constitution has the word absolute majority? 

That's all you can come with ?

It’s a straight forward question that needs an answer if you can provide one. 

Please do some work and research the definition of "Majority" in Government and Constitutions.

Here are some info to start with

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/p...es/supermajority.php

Australia

Both the Australian House of Representatives and Senate have rules that enable motions to be moved for the suspension of standing orders.[1]  Such motions may be used to change the order of business before the relevant house,[2] or to permit the introduction of bills and their passage without delay,[3] among other matters.[4]  If motions to suspend standing orders are moved without notice, then an “absolute majority” of members must vote in favor of the motion.[5]  This means that more than half of the total number of members of the relevant house must vote in favor of the motion, as opposed to a simple majority where only a majority of those present for the vote must vote in favor of the motion.[6]

However, most motions to suspend standing orders are moved by a special type of notice called a “contingent notice” in order to avoid the need to obtain the agreement of an absolute majority of the house.  Such motions only require the agreement of a simple majority.[7]  In addition, other mechanisms (referred to as the “guillotine”) that do not require the agreement of an absolute majority are available to government ministers with respect to placing time limits on debates for bills that are declared urgent.[8]

You sound like them hapless APNU lawyers 

The judge further went on to add that, “most people can tell you what the majority of 65 is,” explaining that it is 33, which represents the larger part of the whole. “We are spending a lot of time here on this,” Justice Anderson in seeming frustration stated.

It was at this juncture that Justice Jacob Wit interjected as he had previously done, that he wanted someone to enlighten him as to why 33 votes were required to pass legislation, but 34 are needed to send the government home.

“I’m still waiting for someone to show me,” the judge said.

Offering a response to Justice Wit’s enquiry, Forde submitted that the rationale behind the 34-number vote bears significance to the extent that it would prevent a constant collapse of government by a member of the House just merely crossing the floor.

 

 

FM
Django posted:
 

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/p...es/supermajority.php

Australia

Both the Australian House of Representatives and Senate have rules that enable motions to be moved for the suspension of standing orders.[1]  Such motions may be used to change the order of business before the relevant house,[2] or to permit the introduction of bills and their passage without delay,[3] among other matters.[4]  If motions to suspend standing orders are moved without notice, then an “absolute majority” of members must vote in favor of the motion.[5]  This means that more than half of the total number of members of the relevant house must vote in favor of the motion, as opposed to a simple majority where only a majority of those present for the vote must vote in favor of the motion.[6]

However, most motions to suspend standing orders are moved by a special type of notice called a “contingent notice” in order to avoid the need to obtain the agreement of an absolute majority of the house.  Such motions only require the agreement of a simple majority.[7]  In addition, other mechanisms (referred to as the “guillotine”) that do not require the agreement of an absolute majority are available to government ministers with respect to placing time limits on debates for bills that are declared urgent.[8]

This is where the Coalition's argument is running into a brick wall. Absolute majority means every MP has to vote and the side that has less votes loses. A simple majority means that only those willing to vote need to and the side that has less votes loses. On December 21, 2018, the 33 votes acquired by the PPP is the absolute majority of ALL 65 MPs voting. too bad the Coalition's shittings came only after Charrandas voted with the PPP for had five of them start their shittings before the vote and been out of the chambers during the vote, the PPP could have had only their 32 votes and the Coalition could have had only 28 and still the PPP would have lost the motion since only 60 MPs would have voted. But no one ever accused the Coalition of not being hapless. 

FM

Add Reply

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