Dear Editor,
The legal argument that the vote of no-confidence was so important that an “absolute” majority was needed, appears to have caused two judges of the Appeal Court of Guyana to determine that a majority of two votes was indeed needed. Having knowledge of biostatistics, I concur with our distinguished Professor Dev Rawana that the decision was mathematically flawed.
However, it is understandable that the distinguished Grenadian scholar Dr Alexis, author of many journal articles, a book on Constitutional law, senior lecturer of the University of the West Indies, could influence two judges to rule against the opinion of our Supreme Court Justice. I believe that Dr Alexis would also likely have significant influence with the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Will the CCJ be able to make a ruling that goes against the principle which Dr Alexis posited?
I believe that this situation is too political for a CCJ, which is not accepted by all Caribbean countries, including Grenada, where a referendum for acceptance failed in November 2018. CARICOM heads of Government and the CARICOM law committee may be a better forum for deciding this politically weighted issue. Additionally, I believe that if the CCJ confirms the result of the Appeal Court, this would be adding to further divisiveness of our legal fraternity, political parties and people.
I feel that there is a need for curtailing excessive spending for enrichment of lawyers at the detriment of the economy of Guyana. No one truly wins and the people of Guyana are the losers. If the CCJ rules in favour of the Government, elections will be in 2020. If the opposition wins, elections are likely in late 2019 given the machinations of GECOM.
However, it also appears to me that the ruling of the Appeal Court on majority is a rewrite of the Constitution, which was not the function of that court. I feel that for a change in wording in the Constitution, there is the need for a referendum and for the people to decide whether an absolute majority was needed for the vote of no-confidence to be accepted. As the learned judge and advocate for Caribbean justice argued, this matter is extremely important. It is as important as a general election, which is decided by the people and not by the court.
I urge the leadership of Guyana to seek the opinion of the people of Guyana for determining whether the term majority as stated in the Constitution, also means absolute majority and that the odd calculation for an absolute majority, as determined by two judges in the Appeal Court, be accepted. Also included in the referendum would be a constitutional amendment for deciding whether dual citizens should be able to be Parliamentarians in Guyana.
I believe that persons, who are resident in Guyana, should be permitted to be Parliamentarians as they are showing their primary loyalty to Guyana by the paying of taxes in Guyana. I would ask the many associations, for example, Transparency International of Guyana, the Bar Association and others, to meet with the political leadership of Guyana, use dialogue and find an election date that is suitable to all.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Davendra Sharma
MBBS (India) DM (UWI)
Professor of Behavior Sciences
