Georgetown – A constitutional crisis is brewing in Guyana through the action of the APNU+AFC coalition government’s failure to relinquish power after it was defeated in a no-confidence motion on December 21, 2018.
The no-confidence motion, tabled by Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo, was carried by a 33-32 majority in the 65-member House. One member of the governing coalition – Charrandass Persaud – voted with the Opposition in favour of the motion thereby triggering the government’s collapse.
Article 106(6) of the Constitution requires that the Cabinet including the President resign if the Government is defeated by a vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.
While initially accepting that the motion was carried, government subsequently argued that a “majority” as meant by this provision is not 33 members of the 65-member House but 34.
After the Speaker of the House refused government’s request to reverse his recognition of the motion, Attorney General Basil Williams has approached the High Court to set aside the vote saying that it needed the support of an “absolute majority” of 34 members to be valid.
Williams has applied to the court for orders to stay the enforcement of the motion and enable President David Granger and all his ministers to remain in office, contending that the ruling by House Speaker Dr Barton Scotland who sanctioned the vote of 33 for to 32 against as valid, was unlawful.

Williams has also asked the court for a conservatory order to preserve the status quo ante that the President and all Ministers of the Government remain in office until the hearing and determination of questions about the legality of the vote.
Guyana’s constitution states that where the government is defeated on a vote of no confidence, general elections are to be held within 90 days thereafter.
Last Friday, private citizen Compton Herbert Reid filed an action challenging the validity of Charrandass Persaud’s vote, given the MP’s Canadian citizenship, the consequence of which, Reid contends, is that the motion against the APNU+AFC government could not be regarded as having been passed.
Reid is essentially seeking a declaration that Persaud could not have been qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly in the first place since he has pledged allegiance to Canada. He is also asking for an order setting aside the order of the Speaker that the no-confidence motion was passed, as well as an order staying the enforcement of the no-confidence motion. He, too, is asking the court for a conservatory order, preserving the status quo ante that the government remains in office until the hearing and determination of his application.
Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo has applied to the High Court to be a party to the proceedings filed by Compton Reid since he is a party of interest.
In his application, Jagdeo noted that he wants to join the proceedings because “the main thrust of the proceedings filed” by Reid is to invalidate the no-confidence motion and to ultimately prevent its constitutional consequences – resignation of the President and Cabinet, calling of general elections in 90 days or having the House extend that period by a two-thirds majority.
Jagdeo says that it is imperative that he “be permitted to join these proceedings not only to protect its integrity, but in order to protect and preserve the will of a majority of the elected members who voted in favour of the said no-confidence motion and also to protect and preserve the sanctity of proceedings in the National Assembly as well as the Constitution of Guyana”.
Further, the Opposition Leader said the matter raises not only issues of paramount constitutional and parliamentary significance, but also fundamental political issues, which may have far-reaching implications for national democracy, peace, order and good governance in Guyana.
“Having regard to the parties to these proceedings and the Attorneys-at-Law on record for Mr. Compton Herbert Reid, I genuinely fear that there is manifest connivance and collusion in the institution of these proceedings and the Attorney-General would be ready and willing to consent to judgment in a deliberate conspiracy to pervert these legal proceedings in order to nullify the aforesaid no confidence motion and its constitutional consequences.”