ChrisRam

January 16, 2019January 17, 2019

Qualification provisions for MPs were there long before the post-Herdmanston reforms

In his letter published in the Stabroek News of January 15, 2019, Mr. Lincoln Lewis accuses former Attorney General Mr. Anil Nandlall of “being deceptive in his claim that the extant article was probably there since independence and all political parties are in violation, which gives the impression that this violation has been happening for more than 50 years.” In Mr. Lewis’ typically emphatic style, he describes Nandlall’s claim as “Not true” and makes his own claim that “The constitutional requirement came into effect in 2000.”

It is unusual for Mr. Lewis to get his facts wrong but on this occasion he does and I believe this is due to the side note to Article 155 in the current version of the 1980 Constitution which refers simply to Act 14 of 2000. In fact, the question of qualification and disqualification for election as members of the (Guyana) National Assembly was addressed in Articles 59 and 60 respectively of the 1966 Independence Constitution. Under the said Article 59 a Commonwealth citizen was so qualified but such a person was disqualified under Article 60 if that person was, “by his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state”. The 1980 Constitution had similar provisions with the important distinction that “Commonwealth citizen” was replaced by “citizen of Guyana” as a qualification for election to the National Assembly (Article 53). The disqualification condition was however framed in identical terms (Article 155) as its predecessor.

January 7, 2019January 17, 2019

AFC included foreign passport holders in its 2011 candidates list, its hypocrisy over Charrandass Persaud is boundless

I can agree with only one of the two points made in a letter by my UG Law Department colleague and friend Professor Justice Duke Pollard, appearing in the Stabroek News of January 3, 2019. The one on which we agree is the abuse of the constitutional provision for qualification for membership of the National Assembly, while on what the Professor describes as calls for the Government to resign following its defeat in a No Confidence Motion in the National Assembly, I must disagree. Let us deal with the second matter first.

Professor Pollard suggests “condign sanctions” against what he describes as “public mischief to require at this stage the resignation of the Government …” With respect, the Professor seems to misrepresent the distinction between the observance by the Granger Administration of the Constitution in relation to the resignation of the “Cabinet, including the President” under Article 106 (6), and that of the Government under Article 106 (7) which takes place after a new President has been sworn in following elections within three months of the passage of the No Confidence Motion.

With his sharp intellect and judicial mind, the Professor would have noticed that the 106(7) resignation of the Government takes place in the future but that no such latitude applies to the resignation of the Cabinet, including the President. The ineluctable conclusion is that under Article 106 (6), Cabinet’s resignation is an immediate consequence of the vote announced by the Speaker. Indeed, instead of calling for condign sanctions against what he himself describes only as allegations, it would have been helpful for the Professor to have lent his undoubted weight to expressing an opinion on what happens in “well-functioning democracies” when a Government loses a vote on a motion of no confidence.

January 3, 2019January 7, 2019

APNU+AFC Gov’t now effectively a caretaker administration, President and Ministers have diminished powers

In my letter of December 29, 2018, I focused on the interpretation given by Attorney-at-Law Mr. Nigel Hughes of the word “majority” in Article 106 (6) of the Constitution of Guyana. With your kind permission I wish to return to the other operative words of the same paragraph. The first thing to note is that Article 106 (6) uses mandatory language and imposes a duty on the Cabinet, including the President, to resign if the Government is defeated on a no confidence motion (NCM).

This resignation under Article 106 (6), brings to a halt their functions, including aiding and advising the President in the general direction and control of the Government, proposing legislation, reviewing of contracts over fifteen million dollars and the making of appointments. They can no longer meet as a Cabinet but there is nothing to prevent the former members meeting and offering advice to the President informally.

While the Constitution is silent on the specific date for the resignation under Article 106 (6), for the reason set out below, that resignation seems to be automatic, or intended to be with immediate effect. In any case, Article 232 (9) provides that the Interpretation and General Clauses Act (ICGA) shall apply for the purpose of interpreting the Constitution. Since no time is prescribed therefore, section 39 of the ICGA provides that “where no time is prescribed within which anything shall be done, such thing shall be done with all convenient speed.”

December 29, 2018December 29, 2018

Mr Hughes’ stand is illogical, AFC must now reaffirm its position that it accepts a 33-32 no-confidence vote as a done deal

I had the benefit of working with Mr. Nigel Hughes in the libel case brought by Freddie Kissoon against former President Bharrat Jagdeo in which Mr. Hughes displayed the qualities of competence, astuteness and effectiveness that make him one of Guyana’s outstanding attorneys-at-law. I therefore find his stand on the 33-32 vote in support of the No Confidence Motion perplexing, illogical and frankly, dangerous.

Article 106 (6) of the Constitution of Guyana brooks no ambiguity or misunderstanding and states emphatically that “(6) 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.”

There are rules of interpretation of all statutes, of which the Constitution sits at the pinnacle. One foundational rule states that “the only safe and correct way of construing statutes is to apply the plain meaning of the words.” Mr. Hughes is too clever a lawyer for the plain meaning of Article 106 (6) to escape him, so he decides to create his own version of Article 106 (6), thus enabling him to assert boldly that “For a no-confidence motion to pass and be valid, the motion has to enjoy more votes than one-half of the full House.”

December 21, 2018December 29, 2018

Every Man, Woman and Child Must Become Oil-Minded (Part 67)

Introduction

“You couldn’t do the math”, said Ambassador Perry Holloway in his interview with reporters published in Stabroek News last Tuesday December 9, 2018 as he exhorted us Guyanese to educate ourselves about the fortune coming our way from ExxonMobil’s oil. Let us allow the man the slack to exult that it was under his watch that a giant American company discovered some of the largest oil finds in the past ten years; that the 2016 Petroleum Agreement signed by the APNU+ AFC gave to the Americans in Guyana’s Maritime Zone an even better version of China’s Belt and Road Plan without even one Dollar or Yuan given by the US Government in loan or grant to the people of Guyana.

But we need to draw the line when exultation turns to condescension and Guyanese are told they cannot count, or as the departed Ambassador said, “do the math.” Well, I have news for the Ambassador: it is he who cannot count and who appears to be uninformed about the terms of the 2016 Agreement.

It is more than a joke that English was too hard and so the Americans created American “English”. Now it seems their math is poor as well, even as their Ambassador criticises us. But we should not be too hard on the poor man as he is no different from the rest of his countrymen and women: America is not among the top twenty-five countries in the world in math and science.