January 9, 2019 issue

Readers' Response

Govt's move to the courts will open a can of worms

Dear Editor:
The government through Compton Herbert Reid has moved to the Courts to nullify the no confidence motion passed in the National Assembly on December 21 last because the Speaker refused to accede to their request to reverse his no confidence decision. In the Motion, the government is seeking a conservatory order, preserving its status quo that it remains in office until the determination of the reliefs sought.
Interestingly, it is not contending that more than 33 votes are required to pass the motion as argued by Attorney General Basil Williams, and Nigel Hughes, another attorney in private practice, who is the husband of a government minister. The Motion is however challenging the vote cast by Charrandass Persaud who is purportedly the holder of a Canadian passport and ultimately has dual citizenship. In this light, the court is asked to declare that Charrandass was not qualified for election as a Member of the National Assembly because he is a Canadian citizen. Therefore, his vote in support of the opposition motion is null and void and of no legal effect.
This move will open a can of worms because Charrandass voted in support of several motions, which are now law and will pose a problem for the government. More so, it is believed that there are several members on the government side who have dual citizenship and who had voted in the past. The opposition PPPC is contending that Persaud was named as a parliamentarian by the government and they should have ascertained whether he was fit and proper to be a lawmaker. Moreover, his vote was used and was vital to pass many Bills. Therefore the government is now putting the entire nation into chaos by invalidating everything done and every law passed in Parliament since 2015.
In a statement, the PPP said “we maintain that the No Confidence Motion was validly passed and the Speaker’s ruling that it was so passed, accompanied by the Clerk’s affirmation, cannot be enquired into or interfered with, by the Judiciary. Moreover, the Judiciary has no jurisdiction to violate or extend any time frame prescribed by the Constitution, since the Constitution is supreme and the Judiciary is subject to the Constitution, not vice versa”
Senior Counsel Rex Mc Kay is leading a battery of lawyers on behalf of government including Stanley Moore, Robert Corbin, two former ministers in the PNC administration, plus Neil Boston another senior counsel and Bretina Glasford. As of now, it is not known who will represent the PPP, but the party in a statement said that the Judiciary has no power to extend the 90 day deadline for holding elections and added that “we will join the proceedings and we ask other interested parties who wish to take an active part in the protection of our Constitution and democracy to do likewise.”
In the light of the importance, this issue will reach to the highest court of the land, the Caribbean Court of Justice… first a judge at first instance (most likely the Chief Justice) then the Guyana Court of Appeal before it reaches the CCJ. It is expected that the Courts will use their initiative and schedule early dates. However, the PPP lawyers should take the initiative to request speedy hearings in all the courts.
Oscar Ramjeet via email
 
There is precedent for voting against one's party
Dear Editor:
No gathering took place and not a drink was taken over the Holidays without the name, Charrandass Persaud being mentioned. And so the debate rages on: traitor or truth-bearer; conspirator or conscience believer?
Whatever conclusions one may arrive at, the salient fact perseveres: The Member of Parliament was disillusioned by the way he was treated as a backbench MP and the method of governance of the APNU/AFC Coalition.
The President and Prime Minister along with the Speaker have both accepted the no-confidence motion, and now the nation is witnessing an amassing of legal intellect seeking to rewrite math formulas by stating that 33 is not the majority of 65 and only 34 votes in Parliament can topple the government.
Just four years ago, the same APNU/AFC group successfully forced the PPP to dissolve Parliament and call elections with the threat of a no-confidence vote based on the composition of a 33:32 vote margin in favour of the coalition. At the time, no one came up with the idea that 34 votes would be required for the motion to pass. Now that the government has been toppled by the same 33-32 vote composition, it is crying wolf.
However, voting against one’s Party in Parliament is nothing new to politics. On 28 March, 1979 a vote of no confidence against the British Labour government of Prime Minister James Callaghan occurred, with many Labour MP’s voting against their own party. The vote was brought by Opposition leader Margaret Thatcher of the Conservative Party. The Labour Government lost by one vote – 311 to 310 and Prime Minister Callaghan was forced to call a general election which was won by Thatcher’s conservative party.
Recently, in July 2017, Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted against their Conservative Party to cancel The Affordable Health Care Act, commonly called Obamacare. The vote count was 50:49 for the cancellation. The last person to vote was Arizona Senator John McCain, and in a most legendary vote, he voted no and Obamacare survived 51:49. No one called Senator McCain a traitor, a backstabber, a sellout or a bribe taker. Many believe that these terms emanate mostly from the Third World countries, including Guyana.
The passage of the no-confidence motion on December 21, 2018 could not come at a worse time for the Granger-led administration. The vote not only stunned the nation, but it led to the defeat of the government and the calling for new elections at a time when the government was badly defeated by the PPP in the November 12 local government elections.
Leyland Chitlall Roopnaraine via email
 
President Bolsonaro's assault on
the environment
Dear Editor:
Brazil’s new president, Jair Bolsonaro, has launched an assault on environmental and Amazon protections with an executive order transferring the regulation and creation of new indigenous reserves to the agriculture ministry – which is controlled by the powerful agribusiness lobby.
The move has sparked serious concern for indigenous leaders, who feel it threatened their reserves, which make up about 13% of Brazilian territory, and marked a symbolic concession to farming interests at a time when deforestation is rising again. Although it was expected from this president, no one thought it would come so quickly.
It is disheartening to witness the signing of an executive order by the President of Brazil that can cause a dismantling of the Amazon and its inhabitants, especially indigenous people. This move can cause serious damage to the entire planet, since the Amazon is considered to be the lungs of the planet.
Guyana has been the champion of protecting the rainforest and its inhabitants. Guyana has a strong voice in protecting the environment, since we share the remnants of the Amazon. I urge every Guyanese and most especially leaders, churches and organizations in the hinterlands, to raise an active voice against this decision to dismantle the Amazon.
Kevin Ram via email
 
< Greater Toronto
Editorial & Views >