The uncertainty permeating Guyana and its nationals in the diaspora following the defeat of the APNU+AFC government by a no-confidence vote and its volte face has cast a shadow of foreboding on Guyana’s future.
On December 21 the APNU+AFC administration debated a no-confidence motion brought by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo that ended with an astonishing outcome. APNU+AFC MP Charrandass Persaud voted with the 32 PPP/C MPs, carrying the no-confidence motion with a tally of 33 to 32 to defeat the startled government. Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr Barton Scotland, acknowledged the motion had been affirmed, and official notification was later dispatched by the Clerk of the National Assembly to the Opposition Leader.
Up to that point it had all followed proper, democratic procedure. However, what has since led to the burdensome uncertainty for nationals at home and abroad is that while Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, and President David Granger, recognised and acknowledged the consequence of the vote, with the Constitution stating, among other things, that national elections be held within 90 days, a disheartening volte face followed two days later. In a bid to retain power, the Granger government overturned its acquiescence, with its Attorney General Basil Williams subsequently declaring an intent to mount a legal challenge.
Guyana’s Constitution is clear on what happens after a no-confidence government defeat. According to Article 106 (6) of the Constitution, “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.” Also, 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 be 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.”
Despite such definitive constitutional direction, remarkably the AG is arguing 33 votes do not constitute a majority in the 65-member Parliament, stating, “Half of the National Assembly is 33 members, not 32”. According to his calculation, one half of the House is 32.5 members. Maintaining there is nothing as half a member, to round up 33.5 means a majority would have to be 34. Justifying such an Orwellian misalignment, the AG later stated, “[Y]ou have to round up to identify half of the house… The house voted 33-32. Thirty-three is a rounding down of what constitutes half of the house. The motion consequently was not carried.”
Last week Dr Scotland refused a government request to reverse his ruling on the no-confidence vote, leaving it to the courts to make a “full, final, and complete settlement”. Following this ruling, the APNU+AFC, using the proxy of a “private citizen”, last Friday filed a lawsuit in the High Court objecting to the validity of Persaud’s vote by challenging his dual Guyana-Canada citizenship.
This latest challenge has now rippled abroad, drawing the diaspora into deeper consternation, uncertainty, and foreboding by casting a shadow on our blossoming, supportive relationships with the homeland. With the efforts by past and present Guyana governments to encourage nationals to return, and for our investments in national reconstruction, for the APNU+AFC to now challenge dual citizenship within such an opportunistic and self-serving framework is to discourage diasporic outreach, remittances, and other support.
Diasporic potentiality is one of Guyana’s promising pillars for development; its forthcoming oil wealth too is foundational for future structural growth. Despite so much promise, Guyana has remained impoverished by, among other things, a history of inhibited development caused by self-wounding partisanship.
Partisan containment of developmental potentialities has immobilised Guyana for too long. President Granger’s government must now eschew such an historical, debilitating vision if our homeland is to move forward as a totality.