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.
excerpts from the kaieteurnews
hahahaha