Government yesterday moved to the Guyana Court of Appeal to challenge two of the judgments made by acting Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire on the December 21st no-confidence vote, saying that she “erred and misdirected herself in law” when she ruled that it was validly passed and that the Cabinet should have resigned and preparation for elections within the constitutional timeframe should have commenced.
Attorney-General Basil Williams is appealing the judge’s decision on his application which had argued that the motion required a 34-member “absolute majority” to succeed, and the decision on the application made by attorney-at-law Christopher Ram, who had asked the High Court to uphold the motion and to declare that the President and his Cabinet should immediately resign as a result.
Williams has not mounted a challenge to the judge’s ruling on the application by private citizen Compton Reid, who had sought to have former government Member of Parliament Charrandass Persaud’s vote invalidated due to him not being eligible to be a parliamentarian by virtue of his Canadian citizenship.
Williams is asking the Appeal Court to set aside the decisions. Last Thursday, he had asked the judge for a stay of its judgment and a conservatory order preserving the status quo until the determination of the appeals he indicated would have been filed but she declined to do so.
In the first Notice of Appeal, which deals with the vote count, Williams contends that the Chief Justice erred when she ruled that the motion of no-confidence upon a division vote of 33 to 32 members of the National Assembly was validly passed as the requisite majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly pursuant to Article 106 (6) of the Constitution.
Further, Williams is of the opinion that the Chief Justice misdirected herself in law when she ruled that the Speaker’s Ruling that the motion of no confidence was carried by a vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly was constitutional and in accordance with Article 106 (6). The challenge is also being mounted on the ground that the Chief Justice’s decision “was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.”
Article 106 (6) of the Constitution provides that “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 no confidence.”
Article 106 (7) of the Constitution further provides that “notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold elections in three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly 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.”
In the Notice of Appeal in Ram’s case, Williams is challenging the court’s ruling on the grounds that the Chief Justice erred when she ruled that the motion was validly and lawfully passed provided for by Article 106 (6) of the Constitution in which the Government was defeated and that it requires that the Cabinet shall resign on 21st December, 2018. Her ruling in this case as well, according to Williams, was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
Further grounds for appeal could be added in both cases once the court’s decisions are made available, he said in both notices.
Speaker of the National Assembly Dr. Barton Scotland and Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo are listed as respondents in the first case, while Ram is in the respondent in the second case.
Last Thursday, the Chief Justice held that while Persaud was not “not qualified” for election to the National Assembly by virtue of his own acts in acknowledging allegiance and adherence to a foreign power to the sovereign state of Canada, in contravention of Article 155 (1) (a) but his vote was still valid. She also ruled that the motion was lawfully passed by a majority vote of 33 to 32 and that this should have immediately triggered the resignation of the Cabinet, including the President, paving the way for elections to be held within the constituted three months period unless the National Assembly agrees on an extension.
The government has been under pressure to call for elections in wake of the vote. In the last week, there have been calls by the United Nations, the European Union and the Private Sector Commission for it to uphold the constitution, following the Chief Justice’s rulings last week.
Government, however, has maintained that it will be business as usual until its appeals are settled and up to Sunday, at the commissioning of the PNCR office at Vreed-en-Hoop, in Region Three, President David Granger gave no indication the Cabinet had resigned. Instead, he told his cheering supporters that the government will challenge the motion all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice
Legal observers have said that while it is within the government’s right to pursue the appeals, the strictures of article 106 (6) and (7) are in force as no stay or conservatory order has been granted by the court. Therefore, they say, the government has to accept that the Cabinet no longer functions and it has to name a date for general elections.
