Dear Editor,
1. Article 156.3 of the Guyana constitution states that: “A member of the National Assembly elected on a list shall cease to be a member of the Assembly if:
(a) He or she declares in writing to the Speaker or to the Representative of the list from which his or her name was extracted that he or she will not support the list from which his or her name was extracted;
(b) He or she declares in writing to the Speaker or to the Representative of the list from which his or her name was extracted, his or her support for another list.”
2. Prior to the Constitution Amendment Act of 2007, Article 156.3, an original provision of the constitution, stated that “A Member of the National Assembly elected on a list shall be disqualified from being a member of the Assembly, if he or she in the prescribed manner, declares that he or she will not support the list from which his or her name was extracted or, declares that he or she abstain from supporting that list or, declares his or her support for another list.”
3. Article 106 (6) of the Constitution 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.” Article 106 (7) states: “Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine, and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the election.”
4. The extant provisions of Article 106 (6) and (7) were not in the original constitution as written by its framers. It was a subsequent addition. If Article 156.3 (a) and (b) are to be interpreted strictly as intended by the framers, then, crossing the floor or acting against an MPs own list or in favour of another list, is prohibited and compels expulsion in that instance.
5. If this argument is true, it follows then that a no confidence motion, as contemplated by Article 106 (6) can only be successful under the circumstance of a minority government. Consequently, it appears that the amendment which enacted Article 106 (6) and (7) may not have been well thought out, conflicts or is incompatible with 156.3 (a) and (b) and therefore cannot, in reality, be effectuated or is unenforceable. Hence, isn’t Article 106. (6) and (7), because of its incongruity with Article 156.3, or its unenforceability, bad law and consequently is null and unconstitutional?
6. Moreover, is a minority government constitutional? The constitution does not appear to contemplate a minority government. It provides for specific functions and responsibilities in the National Assembly to be expressly executed by a minister or the leader of government business. However, in the instance of a minority government these constitutionally mandated functions of a cabinet minister or leader of government business cannot be exercised or can be voted down and/or superseded by the majority parliamentary opposition.
7. This repeatedly occurred during the Donald Ramotar administration – a signal from its inception that its downfall was inevitable. The majority opposition even stripped and altered the budget approved by Ramotar’s cabinet. There’s no authority in the constitution for such actions by the opposition. It is an untenable obstruction of governance. Such acts were therefore either unconstitutional or extra-constitutional. Either is illegal nevertheless. Consequently, doesn’t it naturally follow that a minority government under the extant Guyana constitution is unconstitutional?
This is food for thought which makes constitutional reform an exigency. Isn’t this what our geniuses at the Guyana Bar Association should be doing rather than entangling the Association in partisan politics?
Yours faithfully,
Rickford Burke
President
Caribbean Guyana Institute for
Democracy (CGID)