Dear Editor,
SN’s editorial of March 25th, captioned `The Court of Appeal ruling and its aftermath’ is bang on with not only the CA’s mathematical mockery or logical idiocy, but most critically, this government’s unwavering acceptance of 33 votes as sufficient to succeed on a no-confidence motion back in 2014. Sherwood Lowe is out to lunch and overreaching with his Mar 26/19 attempted rebuttal titled `SN’s editorial was poorly informed and reasoned’. SN got it right. This government’s past conduct in opposition when it brought a 2014 no-confidence motion is arguably the real dagger in the heart of the government’s absurd 34-vote argument. This country had 8 years of 33-32 vote majorities in the national assembly and no one raised this absurd 34-majority contention. This 34-majority argument arose primarily after the loss, not before, when the No Confidence Vote (NCV) motion was filed. This is a new fiction born out of desperation, power hungriness, disrespect for common-sense and the willingness to subvert democracy at all costs.
Sherwood Lowe needs to brush up on his legislative reading as well as his high school math and logic. While it ruled on a no-confidence vote article in the constitution, the Court of Appeal’s (CA’s) decision did not limit its interpretation to only no-confidence votes. Its decision related generally to the interpretation of the meaning of the word ‘majority’ and that decision now applies to all of Guyanese society. Virtually every major decision-making body in this country uses the same ‘majority’ requirement. So, the CA’s interpretation of the word ‘majority’ affects and binds all of these decision-making bodies, particularly the deeply politicized ones like Gecom. The CA has opened a can of worms. The Interpretation and General Clauses Act states this “Where any written law confers functions upon a body or a number of persons consisting of or not being less than three, such functions may, unless the context otherwise requires, be performed in the name of that body or number of persons by a majority of those persons.” The Court of Appeal Act at article 37 states this: “(a) an uneven number of judges shall sit, which, for the purpose of any final determination by the Court of an appeal or a case stated or reserved question of law, shall not be less than three; and (b) any determination by the Court of Appeal on any matter (whether final or otherwise) shall, where more than one judge sits, be according to the opinion of a majority of the judges who sit for the purpose of determining that matter.” These are just two examples that shine a light on Lowe’s failed intellectual gymnastics.
The court cannot make law. It has to interpret law. This has thrown the Interpretation and General Clauses Act into disarray. Every decision made in every contested panel is now challengeable. This is good for lawyers but bad news for a badly clogged judiciary. Even worse, in a terribly divided polity where for the past 8 years power on both sides have been held by slim majorities with the trend likely to continue due to demographic realities and new parties, this will lead to a collapse of the legislative arm of the state on these contested bills where an eternity of legislative and court challenges on simple votes on bills will likely ensue. This decision could effectively kill or badly maim the law-making function of the state. That opens the door for the overly powerful executive arm to run the country by executive order, bypassing the legislature and the judiciary. Remember the judiciary is not a superior arm of state power as per Article 50 and the executive controls 2.5 of the 3 supreme arms of state power! This decision potentially deepens the dangerous imbalance that already exists favouring the executive/presidency and in turns leads us to inevitable dictatorship. This country is one of the most inefficient, sloth-like and disorganized nations. There is rampant lawlessness already. This decision threatens to fuel even more. The gridlock alone that will flow from this is going to stunt the economic progress of this country, jeopardizing the oil investments. This could bring the country to a standstill if it stands.
What about all those laws made based on 33 votes in the past 8 years – are they now null and void? Is a new government entitled to disregard them on the basis of the CA’s decision, further causing bedlam? Considering this country’s history of despotism, its broken and imbalanced constitutional structure, its barely-fragile democratic foundation, its warring factions, its divided polity, its history of electoral misfeasance, its failed political structures, its undemocratic parties, the grave risk to its territorial integrity at this time of its descent into destructive bickering and the serious risks oil bring to this country geopolitically with major superpowers not backing down against each other in its direct theatre, I daresay the no-confidence vote is the most critical democratic bulwark left in this sorry failed state for democratic accountability, renewal and turnover. We make it harder for a no-confidence motion to succeed, we make authoritarianism and geopolitically-driven conflagration easier and bipartisanship harder. Right now, Russia and the US are escalating tensions in Venezuela. Democracy is our best option right now.
Authoritarianism delegitimizes and weakens the state at a time when its geopolitical and territorial risks are greatest, not to mention chilling investments. With a constitution that easily facilitates executive abuse, Guyana needs a 33-vote majority for its every survival. It is the only tool left for the legislature to strike back against an executive that dominates the legislative arm, especially with the veto. Finally, if Charrandass Persaud voted as he was expected to, for the government, then the government still does not get the Court of Appeal’s mathematical majority of 34 votes to succeed against the no-confidence vote. The opposition would have ended up with 32 votes, not 31 and the government 33 votes, not 34. The CCJ’s decision may have to solve our ready inclination to despotism more than our problems with mathematical foolishness and logical confusion.
Yours faithfully,
M. Maxwell
