Dear Editor,
Reference is made to the news report “No-confidence motion should be debated before budget” (SN Nov 20), the editorial “Another no-confidence motion” (SN Nov 19), other commentaries and reports that that appeared on November 16, 17, 23, 28, 29. There is debate on when a no confidence motion can be heard and its meaning. A no confidence motion is a very important mechanism – on whether the elected body has confidence for the continuation of the government. Once debated, and if passed, the government resigns. New elections are immediately triggered – it had happened in Germany, UK, England, Australia, Canada, Barbados, etc. An important piece of legislation, like those pertaining to budgetary matters, is also considered as a no confidence motion and several governments were forced to resign after losing budgetary bills. If a government can’t get its budget approved, as Minister Carl Greenidge noted last week, it must also resign. Greenidge suggests that the opposition considers the budget debate (and its vote) as a no confidence motion. Such a debate and vote is indeed a kind of no confidence motion. But the opposition proposes a different debate altogether and not necessarily to bring down the government. In fact, the opposition has little chance of toppling the government because it does not have the numbers.
The research on no confidence motions reveal that such a parliamentary motion is debated in the order it is presented as a proposed legislation. In the Guyana case, unless the proposed budget legislation (for presentation and debate) was filed before the no confidence motion was proposed in parliament, then the latter should have been debated first. At any rate, experts feel that a no confidence motion should take precedence over a budgetary matter or other legislative acts and in fact that has been the precedence in most parliamentary (Westminster) forms of government. If a parliament does not have confidence in the government, then there is no point in presenting a budget or other legislative acts. New elections will have to be held and the new government will have to prepare the budget necessary for government functioning.
Minister Greenidge suggests there is no need for a no confidence motion because the budget debate and vote would determine whether the parliament has confidence in the government. He is right. But once a motion of no confidence is presented to parliament, it must be debated before new legislative acts including the budget unless the mover of the motion or parliament agrees to put off the debate. Several motions of confidence were presented before the parliament in Trinidad and they took precedence over other proposed debates. No too long ago, in St. Kitts, the ruling party tried to avoid holding a debate on a no confidence motion filed against the Douglas Administration. The Prime Minister, who lost his majority, avoided the debate with his Speaker refusing to bring it for debate and a vote. The high court ruled in favour of the motion being debated urgently and before other matters. Prime Minister Douglas eventually held elections and he was voted out. As your editorial reminded us right here in Guyana, in 2015, then President Donald Ramotar shirked debate of a no confidence motion filed by then opposition AFC and supported by the APNU (PNCR). Ramotar recognized and accepted that the no confidence motion took precedence over other matters. Instead of debating the motion, he prorogued and then dissolved parliament rather than face the vote.
Contrary to what Rickford Burke penned (SN Nov 28), once a no confidence vote is taken and the government loses, the vote can’t be reversed by replacing MPs who voted against the government. As former Speaker Ralph Ramkarran correctly responded (SN Nov 29), the deed is done. The government lost and resigns. Parliament is dissolved. New elections are held. Any other act is “unparliamentary”, ultra vires conventions, and “unethical”. But Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo is right in stating (SN Nov 23) that the opposition motion has virtually no prospect of passing unless a government members vote in favour of it. In this case, the government must vacate office and the country must go to the polls.
As an aside, the AFC had opposed the legislative act which granted power to the leader of a parliamentary list to replace its MPs who voted against the party’s whip. Moses Nagamootoo, who was a PPP MP at the time, was not in favour of the bill (that passed around 2007) but voted for it anyway because he did not wish to vote against his party whip. I was present as an observer in parliament that day. Khemraj Ramjattan spoke passionately and vociferously against the bill that tied MPs to their party. It is curious to know their position now that they are on the opposing side – would they allow their MPs a conscience vote on the no confidence motion? Since they both were not in favor of the 2007 bill that tied MPs to their party, they should allow MPs to vote in secret ballot or give them the freedom to vote as they wish.
Yours faithfully,
Dr. Vishnu Bisram
