Attorney General Basil Williams believes that precedence exists for the Speaker of the National Assembly to review his ruling that the no confidence motion was passed with a majority.

Williams has since sent a legal brief to the Speaker, indicating that the Opposition would have needed 34 votes and not 33 for the motion to be passed. 

The view of Williams and a number of other senior Attorneys is that in the 65 member parliament, a majority of votes would be 33 as half, plus one. 

Today, Williams said the Government is ready to move to the Courts if the ruling, by the Speaker of the House at its next sitting, does not fall within its favour.

He explained that the legal brief covers several critical areas about the vote and what constitutes a majority of the House.

“The framers of the Constitution, by requiring the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly, have set the requirement as an absolute majority. The passage of legislation and motions outside of Article 106 (6) procedurally only requires a vote of those members present and voting (Article 168) i.e. a simple majority. Therefore, resolution 101 was not passed by the required majority of elected members of the National Assembly”, Williams said.

The Attorney General explained that the constitutional requirement for voting on a motion of no-confidence is different from voting on the passage of legislation and ordinary motions in Parliament.

Already, the Government intends to utilize the services of Senior Counsel Rex McKay, prominent Attorney Stephen Fraser and a number of legal advisors, if the matter is forced to go to the Court. 

Related posts:

Ramjattan blasts Speaker over decision to seek advice on no-confidence motions from AG Government officially files Appeal in No-Confidence cases Government moves to Court over no-confidence motion with two cases Hughes sticking to position on passage of no-confidence motion -“There was no majority”