Dear Editor,
I resisted the urge to immediately respond to the interpretation put forward by well-known attorney Nigel Hughes that 34 votes were needed for the no-confidence motion to be carried instead of 33 votes in the hope that he would review his position. This seems unlikely however as he rejected the statement of the Guyana Bar Association several days after his initial statement.
The no-confidence motion was voted on during a sitting of the National Assembly on Friday, 21 December 2018 while Nigel published his views on social media on Sunday, 23 December 2018. In doing so, he referenced Hughes v Rogers. Civil suit 99 and 101 of 1999. Anguilla. Delivered Jan 12th 2000. First instance decision of Sanders J. On the following day, he made another post which I quote in full:
“Accepting responsibility for having started this discussion one may want to consider that an absolute majority is required for the passage of a no confidence motion. An absolute majority is half plus one. Half of the National Assembly is 33 members not 32. You may wish to consider Kliman v Speaker of Parliament of the Republic of Vanuatu, 2011VUCA 15, Civil Appeal 09 of 2011.”
He also provided a link – http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUCA/2011/15.html – for anyone wanting to review.
I couldn’t find the text of the first case but did review the text to the second case using the link provided. The case centred around the provisions of Article 43 (2) of the Vanuatu constitution which provides that “Parliament may pass a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister. At least 1 week’s notice of such a motion shall be given to the Speaker and the motion must be signed by one-sixth of the members of Parliament. If it is supported by an absolute majority of the members of Parliament, the Prime Minister and other Ministers shall cease to hold office forthwith but shall continue to exercise their functions until a new Prime Minister is elected.”
On the other hand, Article 106 (6) of the Guyana constitution provides that “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.”
Herein lies the issue with Nigel’s interpretation – while the Vanuatu constitution requires “an absolute majority” the Guyana constitution requires “a majority”. There is a difference and I invite Nigel and the press to review the distinction. We cannot insert a rule into our constitution which is not there. Let us not create false hope in supporters where there should be done. Let us also not waste the time of the Courts on this one.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)
