EDITORIAL

Two Thursdays ago, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), at a case management conference, determined that it would expedite the hearing of the appeal from the majority decision of the Guyana Court of Appeal denying the validity of the no-confidence motion against the currently governing coalition administration. That the matter is ultimately to be judicially resolved should at least deny the accuracy of the frequently quoted dictum that Parliament is the highest court in the land.

The entire affair started when, during the vote on the motion in the National Assembly, one member of the coalition, Mr Charrandass Persaud, voted in favour to have it carried by 33 votes to 32 in the 65-member assembly. Naturally displeased with the result, the administration referred the matter to the local courts where the Chief Justice ruled last month that the motion had been validly carried in that it was in accordance with the constitutional requirement in Article 168 (1) –

“Save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, all questions proposed for decision in the National Assembly shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting.”

In her view, since 65 members were present and voting, 33 votes would suffice for a majority. However, the argument of the government was that the no-confidence motion required an absolute majority, a vote that would require 34 members to be in favour for the motion to be carried. This argument ran as follows – since a
majority is one more than fifty per cent of the vote and there are 65 members, 50% of which is 32.5 members, this number must be rounded to 33, and since there is no half a member, 1 more vote would give a total of 34.

We have already expressed our disagreement with this argument, given, first and foremost, that there is no express mention in the Guyanese Constitution for there to be an absolute majority in this instance. Indeed according to one writer, the phrase occurs there in one instance only, and that dealing with public service pensions.

Moreover, second, we do not understand that there is a difference between a simple majority and an absolute majority as these terms are ordinarily used, when all the members are present and voting.

While the simple majority would require a 50% plus one number of those actually present and voting, the absolute majority requires 50% plus one of ALL the members of the Assembly. Thus, abstentions and physical absences may not cause the absolute majority, which is always constant, to vary, while they may do so in the case of the
simple majority. We therefore agree with the proposition advanced that “if everyone who is eligible to vote does so, then a simple majority becomes an absolute majority. If everyone in the National Assembly voted, then the simple majority becomes the same as the absolute majority, since the number of those who were present and voted is the same as those who were eligible to vote”.

However, by a two to one majority, the Guyana Court of Appeal agreed with the view of the incumbent administration, holding that an absolute majority of 34 votes in favour was indeed required.

The matter will now be decided by Guyana’s highest court, the CCJ. It may be of interest to note that in earlier times, the decision of the Court of Appeal would have been binding, not because it was right, but simply because there would have been no appeal from it possible.