Dear Editor,
The Guyana Government wants two bites of the cherry because in its motion filed last Friday it only asks the Court to deal with one issue – whether or not Charrandass Persaud, Canadian citizen was ineligible to vote yes in the No Confidence Motion being the holder of a Canadian passport. In the pleadings, the applicant Compton Reid did not seek a determination in connection with the number of votes required for the motion to be passed.
Attorney General, Basil Williams, said on Saturday that their grouse is two-fold, Charrandass’s disqualification from voting given his Canadian citizenship and the other: 34 rather than 33 votes constitute the majority required for the no-confidence motion to be passed. It seems to me the government is splitting up the cause of action to prolong the issue as long as possible.
I am not sure if there is any merit in the 26-page motion filed. I have no doubt that lawyers for the PPP will scrutinize Reid’s claim with a view of filing a Motion to strike out the proceedings. The main point is that Persaud was chosen/elected by the AFC, the junior partner of the APNU+AFC government and they should have ascertained that he was “fit and proper” to be a lawmaker. He has voted on several Bills and his vote was vital for them to be passed in the National Assembly. If the Court now finds that he should not be a Member of Parliament it will put the government in a quandary as regards the laws passed because of Persaud’s vital vote. This will ultimately put the entire nation in chaos.
It is written in stone that the Motion was passed – there was no objection by the government lawmakers before the Speaker made his ruling. In fact both the President and Prime Minister then accepted the ruling. They cannot at this stage annul the Speaker’s ruling. 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 and not vice versa.
If the learned trial judge denies the Motion to strike out, the PPP lawyers should request a speedy trial – hearing every day until a conclusion is reached. The same should apply if there is an appeal. Appeals in England and other Commonwealth nations like Fiji and Bangladesh can be leapfrogged to the highest Court, but I do not think that this is applicable in Guyana. Meanwhile, the no-confidence vote passed on December 21 remains valid and binding until it is invalidated by the Court. It is important to note that the PPP is contending that the Court cannot intervene; by doing so it will be sanctioning an illegality.
Yours faithfully,
Oscar Ramjeet
