The elements of a valid no-confidence motion

August 8, 2014, By KNews, Filed Under Features/Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source - Kaieteur News

If the AFC wants to move a motion of no-confidence in the government, it should properly construct such a motion and have it tabled in the National Assembly.

A no-confidence motion is a special type of motion. It is not like any other ordinary motion that is usually passed by the House. Ordinary motions do not create binding obligations on the part of governments. No-confidence motions do.

Unlike other motions passed by the National Assembly, the Government of Guyana is bound to resign if the National Assembly passes a no-confidence motion. This is what makes a no-confidence motion different from other motions: it creates a binding obligation on the part of the government.

In this instance, the government must hold elections within three months. There is no interim government. A new government will be decided by elections, with the existing government holding the fort until those elections are held.

Since the Constitution triggers the resignation of the government upon the passage of a majority of the elected members of the National Assembly, it follows that any no-confidence motion is subject to judicial review. Other motions are not, because they do not form part of a constitutional mechanism for a removal of the government.

In other words, the government can challenge the validity of a no-confidence motion. It will be for the Court to determine in any such challenge whether the motion comprised elements necessary for it to be considered a no-confidence motion so as to trigger a resignation of the government.

So what are these elements of a no-confidence motion? Firstly, a no-confidence motion must speak to the target of the motion. The first element of a no-confidence motion is that it must indicate against whom the motion is being moved. Is the target the Cabinet or the President? In some jurisdictions, it is necessary to explicitly state whether the motion is against the Cabinet or against the President, because a motion of no-confidence can be moved against either or both.

The PPP may have already preempted the opposition’s plans for the tabling of a no-confidence motion. The government has announced that the spending of the monies by the Minister of Finance was approved by the Cabinet, which in our case is headed by the President.

The National Assembly cannot overturn a decision of the President, and therefore the National Assembly cannot move a motion of no-confidence over an action which is made in the name of the President. As such, I respectfully submit that so long as an action is directly authorized by the President, it cannot be the subject of a no-confidence motion.

The second element is that the motion must state the reason why the motion of no-confidence is being moved. Now there is no need for a justifiable reason. Any reason can be given, but a reason must be provided. A mere resolve clause cannot constitute a motion of no-confidence, because it would be deficient in an element necessary to create a binding obligation on the part of the government to resign. Without a basis, a motion merely expressing lack of confidence in the government becomes an ordinary motion. It will not be binding on the government and will not trigger a constitutionally-imposed resignation of the government.

I believe APNU was trying to indicate this all along to the AFC. APNU was saying all along that all it saw was a resolve clause. And there are now reports in the media indicating that a motion submitted to the Clerk of the National Assembly by the AFC merely has a resolve clause and not any “whereas” clauses.

It is hard to see any Speaker allowing a resolve clause alone to be debated in the National Assembly. Such a motion would be deficient. If, however, such a motion is allowed to be debated and passed, the PPPC is likely to launch a judicial challenge, as is within its right to do, and will most likely succeed in having the Court deem that a mere resolve clause cannot trigger a constitutionally mandated resignation of the government.

It makes a mockery of the National Assembly and the democratic process for any political party to table a motion with a mere resolve clause. What is the National Assembly being reduced to? Is it being reduced to a mere instrument to trigger the resignation of the government?

The National Assembly is supposed to be a place for debate and discussion. This is the basis upon which decisions are arrived at.

The National Assembly is not a place for the making of unilateral decisions? As such, how can the National Assembly be asked to pass a motion without debate, and how can there be a debate on a mere resolve clause? How can any Speaker be asked to approve for debate a mere resolve clause?  About what will the members of the National Assembly be debating?

Any motion that has a resolve clause and no “whereas clauses” cannot form the basis of a valid motion.

Source -- http://www.kaieteurnewsonline....o-confidence-motion/