Print this page

GUYANA | CCJ reserves judgment in challenge to Appeal Court decision

Featured President of the Caribbean Court of Justice, Adrian Saunders. President of the Caribbean Court of Justice, Adrian Saunders.
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO,  May 10, 2018 - The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Friday reserved judgment in the appeal brought by Guyana's Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, who challenged an appeal court ruling that invalidated a no confidence motion passed in the National Assembly on the 21st of December last year.
The five-member panel heard oral submissions over the last two days on three matters including a request by Jagdeo for a determination whether a majority of 34 votes were needed to ensure the fall of the government, and whether President David Granger and his government should have resigned and allowed for fresh elections within 90 days of the vote of no confidence on December 21.

In March, the Court of Appeal ruled by a 2:1 majority that 34 votes would have been needed to validly pass the No-confidence Motion brought against the Government on December 21.

Justices Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Dawn Gregory opined that while 33 is the majority of the 65-member National Assembly, the successful passage of a no-confidence motion requires an “absolute majority” of 34, and not the “simple” majority of 33 that has been used to pass ordinary business in the House.

The third appellate judge, Justice Rishi Persaud had dismissed the appeal and conferred with the ruling of the High Court.

President of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Adrian Saunders on Friday indicated that the regional court believes that Guyana’s National Assembly requires an absolute majority of its 65 members to pass a no-confidence motion, but the issue is deciding on the formula.

“No one is doubting that an absolute majority is required in this case,” said Saunders during final submissions on Friday, the last day of oral arguments on the consolidated appeals of  the December 21 no-confidence motion. Charrandass Persaud, then a government parliamentarian crossed the floor to give the opposition PPP the 33 the votes they thoiught were needed to bring the government down. 

Justice Saunders added that “the only issue is: what constitutes an absolute majority?” even as he declined to entertain further arguments on that point.

The CCJ President said the two questions facing the regional court surrounds what is an absolute majority of 65; whether that requires dividing by two and adding one, as had been the case in the Solomon Islands, or a determination of what's the majority of an uneven number.

The Guyana government's  legal team maintains that an absolute majority of 65 is 34.  This argument was upheld on March 22  by the Guyana Court of Appeal to invalidate the no-confidence motion that the Guyana High Court had ruled had been validly passed by 33 votes, and for which the Opposition Leader is seeking the CCJ's ruling.

The other related matters being heard by the CCJ include a constitutional appeal brought by Mr. Zulfikar Mustapha who alleges that the circumstances of the appointment of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission breaches aspects of the Constitution. Mr. Mustapha was unsuccessful in both the High Court and Court of Appeal and has appealed to the Caribbean Court of Justice.

Another disputed issue is whether one of the members who voted in favour of the motion, Mr. Charrandas Persaud, who crossed the floor to vote with the opposition, was ineligible to vote because he held dual citizenship.

When the matter came before the Chief Justice in the Guyana High Court, the Chief Justice ruled that only 33 votes were required. However, on appeal to the Court of Appeal, it was held that 34 votes were required. The matter is now before the CCJ for final determination.




Last modified onSaturday, 11 May 2019 18:11
  • Countries: Guyana
Design © by Studio6683 International Ltd.. All Rights Reserved.