By Ravin Singh

The opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP) is of the view that the scheduled sitting of the National Assembly on January 3, 2019 will be in violation of the Constitution and that the party will not be attending.

This position was articulated by opposition Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira in a letter to Speaker Dr. Barton Scotland, earlier today.

Listed on the January 3, 2019 Order Paper of the National Assembly are, inter alia: the Value-Added Tax (Amendment Bill, the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, and the Property Tax (Amendment) Bill.

However, the opposition Member of Parliament (MP) reasoned that the consideration of these bills is not in compliance with Article 106(7) of the Constitution, given the recent passage of a no-confidence motion against the government.

“Therefore, any sitting of the National Assembly that is not in compliance with this article is a violation of the Constitution,” she said, adding that the Parliamentary Opposition “will not participate in undermining the Constitution”. She also recommended that the sitting not be held.

On December 21, 2018, then government MP and expelled Alliance for Change (AFC) member Charrandass Persaud voted in favour of an opposition-sponsored no-confidence motion which saw the results being 33-32 in favour of the opposition.

The motion was carried and both President David Granger and Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo initially accepted the passage of the motion.

The constitution stipulates that General Elections are to be held within three months, or a later time decided on by two-thirds of the National Assembly, should a no confidence motion be passed in the House.

However, the government announced subsequently in a statement that it would advance several challenges to the outcome of the motion. One of those challenges include the request for a review by the Speaker, since legal minds have suggested that 34, and not 33 votes were needed for the motion to be carried.

Cognizant of this, Teixeira offered that the motion was “conclusively dealt with” and is therefore “not open to review”.

“We have been advised, with no disrespect to you sir, that the Speaker has no review powers over the said Motion, and, that the Speaker, the Clerk and the National Assembly are functus officioin respect of and in relation to the said Motion” the Chief Whip wrote.

Further, she reasoned that Standing Order 26(e) precludes any effort to rescind a resolution on a question already decided on in the same Session.

In keeping with Article 101 (7) of the Constitution, the opposition believes that next course of action should be for the government to announce the hosting of elections within three months, or a later date agreed upon by two-thirds of the National Assembly.

Related posts:

CCJ dismisses applications to block sitting of the National Assembly Government lawyers up to take passage of no-confidence motion to the Courts if Speaker does not review Guyana now faces “Constitutional Crisis” over Sitting of National Assembly Speaker wants National Assembly to meet on November 6