Attorney General (AG) Basil Williams SC yesterday submitted to the High Court that parliamentary precedent and practice establish that an “absolute majority” of 34 or more votes of the elected members of the National Assembly were needed for the government to be defeated on the recent no-confidence motion
Williams also argues that the provisions set out in Articles 106(6) and 106(7) of the Constitution, which provide for the holding of new elections within 90 days upon the success of a no-confidence motion, are inconsistent with Article 70(3), which provide for a five-year term for the government and therefore the resolution is void.
“The quintessential fact is that there has been an error in the manner of the calculation of the number of votes needed for a No Confidence Motion, and this error carried over into the purported pronouncement by the Speaker that the vote was carried. The ineluctable conclusion is that the vote was improper and unconstitutional,” Williams says in his written arguments, which were submitted yesterday in keeping with timelines set by Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire.