The Government Thursday evening appeared defiant in the face of the ruling by the Chief Justice, insisting that the “status quo” remains until the matter is decided at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
This is despite the fact that the Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire, denied an order for the status quo to remain, or for there to be business as usual for the Government until the appeal of her Thursday decision is determined.
“Until the matter is concluded at the highest court of appeal the status quo remains and the business of government continues as usual,” the Government said in a statement.
However, when on Thursday afternoon the Attorney General asked for the order preserving the status quo, the Chief Justice refused to grant such an order and suggested to the Attorney General that he takes such a request to the Court of Appeal when he files an appeal to her decision there.
The Government in its statement said it “notes and respects the rulings of the Chief Justice.
“The ruling is not in favour of the Government’s position with regard to the vote on December 21st 2018.
“However due process continues and the Government will file an appeal in the Court of Appeal.
“The government continues to believe that the full adjudication of this issue is in the national interest.”
The Government also sought to reassure the Guyanese people that it will continue to act in accordance with the constitution of Guyana.
In her rulings on the No Confidence applications brought before her, the Chief Justice was clear that the Cabinet of the Coalition Government ceased to exist immediately upon the passage of the No Confidence motion on the night of December 21, 2018.
The President and his senior ministers form the Cabinet, which meets regularly to make decisions and decide whether to give a “no objection” to the award of contracts.
Article 106 (6) of the Constitution dictates that the President and Cabinet shall resign if there is the passage of a No Confidence motion.
However, the Chief Justice noted that there is no provision in the constitution for there to be a “formal” resignation and so it was her view that the Cabinet ceased to exist once the motion was carried.
She ruled that No Confidence vote was validly carried or passed, paving the way for elections by March 21, unless the government and opposition agree to an extension.
In the major argument about what constitutes a majority in the House, the Chief Justice ruled that 33 would always be considered a majority in the 65-seat House and it is that 33 that will always be considered the majority when a vote is required of all the elected members of the House.
The Chief Justice had also refused the application by the Attorney General for a stay in implementation of her judgment.
She upheld the validity of the vote even though she also ruled that Berbice Parliamentarian Charrandass Persaud occupied his seat in violation of the Constitution; this was on the grounds that the Constitution blocks anyone from being a dual citizen from being elected a Member of the House.
Justice George-Wilshire ruled that while Charrandass Persaud was elected to the House in violation of the constitution, given his dual citizenship, she could not reverse the vote since there is also a constitutional provision that determines what happens in such a case.
Article 165(2) of the Constitution states that the presence or participation of a Member who is actually not entitled to be there “shall not invalidate those proceedings.”
Advertisement
_____