Attorney General Basil Williams yesterday told reporters that he knew all along that 34 votes were required to pass the motion of no confidence in parliament on December 21 but chose to remain silent so that no one else on the government side would vote for it.
“This thing is tactical. For me it was tactical because I had, and we had information that something like that would happen with more than one person (on the government benches),” he said at a press conference.
“Look I wasn’t going to tell the PPP how much people they needed to thief or steal from the APNU+AFC government,” he said before brushing aside a question on whether government was prepared to steal a vote from the other side. “I have no comment on that but look, this is a serious matter because it is rooted in thievery and betrayal and to get the 34 votes, you have to poach on the other side,” he said before insisting that the opposition already knew that it had “contaminated” persons on the government side.
He reiterated that he knew beforehand that 34 was needed to carry the motion and said that it would have been unwise for government to get up after Persaud voted, to inform the opposition that they needed another one.
“I am saying to you that in order for you to get 34, you need to steal from the other side…any party,” he said adding that a decision was made to keep this information from the House.
He said that he had decided because of his experience working with three presidents and leaders of his party and it being politics, “that that was the best course to do and it is because I did that that is why we are in a good position to set aside the decision.”
Williams expressed confidence that he will succeed should the matter go before the court.
He defended the president’s and the government’s initial acceptance of the passage of the motion on December 21 saying that it was done to ensure peace and stability. He stressed that the president “has a duty to ensure that the public peace is preserved. That matter could have gone anyhow publically because as I said it was a betrayal, it was treacherous and people (it) suddenly dawned on them that another 23 years could be looming at them. You never know. So it behooved the president to ensure that he made a statement that would not inflame the issue…”
Williams declined to say if it was he who advised the president to make the statement, adding that it doesn’t matter what the government or president said previously. “You cannot ratify a nullity,” he stressed, adding that “you cannot contract out of the law and out of the Constitution…It didn’t matter what the president said in relation to the status of the vote because if it was a nullity, it was a nullity and it can’t change.”
Williams yesterday restated the points he made in a brief to cabinet and which was reported in the last Sunday Stabroek.
While insisting that Speaker of the National Assembly Dr Barton Scotland had the power to reverse the passage of the December 21 no-confidence motion, Williams yesterday stated again that if this is not done, the government will be moving to the courts.
“The first stop is the Speaker. The Speaker has the ability to reverse his decision if he feels it is incorrect. The Speaker, for example, could make a ruling without the matter going to the floor…You have to find out if the vote was properly carried and if the Speaker considers yes it required 34 [votes], he could make a ruling,” Williams told the media, stressing that there are many examples from around the world which cements the government’s contention that 34 and not 33 votes are needed for the motion to pass.
On December 21, Scotland ruled that the no-confidence motion brought by the opposition PPP/C against the government, was carried following a `yes’ vote from former APNU+AFC parliamentarian Charrandas Persaud. Persaud, who has since left for Canada, has that he did it out of conscience given the government’s poor performance. His vote meant that 33 MPs supported the motion while 32 were against.
Williams has since advised the government that the Speaker erred in ruling that the motion was carried and yesterday, he informed that a Legal Memorandum addressing the consequences of the vote was submitted to Scotland on Sunday evening. He could not say if the Speaker is likely to respond to the document before Parliament reconvenes on Thursday. The Speaker left the jurisdiction shortly after the passage of the motion.
Stabroek News was unable to make contact with the Speaker despite numerous efforts yesterday. His office said that he was still away and that he would be back on Thursday.
Williams, in responding to questions from the media, said his arguments in favour of the ruling being reversed will be premised on parliamentary practice and procedure. “The Speaker has preeminence when he presides in the parliament and he is really only limited to ensuring that he doesn’t infringe constitutional provisions but you would remember that we are responsible for our internal business…procedure etc,” he said before recalling that when former Speaker Raphael Trotman held office, “we discovered a lot of things in that parliament, one was that you can change anything in the rules by simply amending the super Standing Order 112, which you use to amend the rest.”
Reading from a prepared statement, the AG said that it is the Government’s position that there was a “miscalculation” of the majority of all elected members as required under Article 106(6) of the Constitution for the Government to be defeated on a vote of no-confidence.
To this end, he said that the Legal Memorandum was sent to Scotland setting out the legal issues that “we wish for him to consider.” The contents of the document was leaked to the press on Saturday.
Williams noted that the government is determining six issues: “Whether 33 votes in favour of the motion of no-confidence amounted to a majority of all elected members in accordance with Article 106 (6) of the Constitution?; Whether Resolution 101 (the motion) is constitutional and effective and passed in accordance Article 106 (6) of the Constitution?; Whether Mr. Charrandas Persaud was disqualified to vote as an elected member of the National Assembly?; Whether the Speaker can reverse the ruling that the no-confidence motion was carried?; What is the effect of the sub judice rule should the Speaker’s ruling be legally challenged in the Courts? and whether the Speaker’s ruling on the vote can be nullified by the Courts?”
Article 106(6) provides that the “Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of the majority of all elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.”
Williams argued that with regards to issue one and two, Government was not defeated by a majority as required under Article 106(6) of the Constitution. “In order for the Government to be defeated on a vote of confidence, 34 or more votes of all the elected members in favour of the motion were required instead of 33. This assertion is grounded in established Parliamentary precedent and practice and case law in the Commonwealth,” he said before adding that while the National Assembly comprises 65 members, mathematically, half of all the elected members of the current National Assembly would result in a fraction of 32.5.
With regards to issue three, which addresses citizenship, Williams, in his statement, said that as a citizen of both Guyana and Canada “Mr Persaud is disqualified to be an elected member of the National Assembly pursuant to Article 155 (1) (a) of the Constitution.”
The AG, while acknowledging that the citizenship issue can impact other MPs, said that at the moment, that is not being considered as it is Persaud’s that is being questioned.
“As I said, that is not an issue right now so I don’t want to preempt any discussion…The only issue that will go before the court is Charrandas Persaud,” he said, adding that none of the MPs who hold dual citizenship will be asked to resign.
He later referred reporters to attorney Rex McKay who is looking at the matter.
Pressed further on the issue, Williams said that it is the responsibility of the Guyana Elections Commission to check on the citizenship of MPs.
Explaining the process, he said that when a persons is to be a candidate, he has to sign a statutory declaration of candidate on a list form. That persons also swears that he is cognisant of the qualifications and disqualifications as outlined in the Constitution. Williams explained that Persaud would have signed the candidate declaration form knowing that as a Canadian citizen, he is disqualified.
