Dear Editor,
Aware as I am that there is an extant case before our Supreme Court of Judicature seeking a judicial interpretation of the word “majority” within the context of the vote of no-confidence which occurred on the 21st December, 2018, I, therefore, offer no comment but respectfully seek the space to share with the nation, a paragraph from a judgment from the Caribbean Court of Justice by Sir Dennis Byron in the Cedric Richardson vs The Attorney General ([2018] CCJ-17-AJ) popularly referred to as the “third term” case.
At paragraph 6, it states:
“Articles enjoying the shallowest level of entrenchment require the votes of an absolute majority of the National Assembly for their alteration. This is described in Article 164 (1) which prescribes that “… a Bill for an Act of Parliament to alter this Constitution shall not be passed by the National Assembly unless it is supported at the final voting in the Assembly by the votes of a majority of all the elected members of the Assembly.” This is more difficult than the passage of ordinary legislation which only requires a simple majority, being a majority of those who voted.”
Having seen that there has been judicial interpretation of the meaning of absolute majority and simple majority by none other than our apex court, the Caribbean Court of Justice, I share this paragraph in good faith believing that our political leaders will honour the provisions of the Constitution and do what is best for our nation and not what is best for themselves.
Yours faithfully,
Charles S. Ramson
Attorney-at-Law
Former Member of Parliament
