CITATION

Christopher Ram et al v The Attorney General of Guyana et al [2019] CCJ 10 (AJ)

Court decided in: Caribbean Court of Justice
Judgement by The Hon. Mr. Justice Saunders on 18th June, 2019

FACTS
Mr. Granger’s administration secured 33 of the 65 seats in the National assembly at the last
general elections in 2015 while Mr. Jagdeo’s administration gained 32 seats. After 3 years, Mr.
Jagdeo moved a motion of no confidence in the government. All 65 members were present and
voted on 21st December 2018. However, a member of the government, Charrandas Persaud,
joined the opposition in voting for the motion. The results were that 33 members voted in favour
of the motion while 32 voted against. The speaker of the national assembly declared the motion
as passed. However, the government did not resign nor their time was not extended as postulated
by Article 106 (6).

Firstly, an action was brought by Compton Reid who contended that Mr. Persaud’s vote of No
confidence was invalid because he was a dual citizen at the time of elections. Secondly, the
Attorney General filed an action contending that the motion was not properly passed because the
formula for an absolute majority was at least one half of the members plus one. Ultimately, Mr.
Ram contended that the motion had been properly passed and that national and regional elections
were to be held no later than 21st March 2019.

The High court ruled that the motion was properly passed. It was also proffered that though
prima facie Mr. Persaud was disqualified from being elected in the 2015 election since within 28
days no challenge was made to his appointment under The National Elections Validity Act.
However, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision on the former point.

ISSUE
1. Does Article 106(6) apply to the “No Confidence Motions”?
2. What is the majority necessary for the passage of a no confidence motion?
3. Does the court have jurisdiction to inquire into the issue of Mr. Persaud’s disqualification
from being a member of the National Assembly?
4. Was Mr Persaud precluded from voting in the manner he did in light of the anti-defection
provisions Art 156. (3) of the constitution?
5. What consequences attend the answers to the above questions?

DECISION
 Affirmed the decision of the lower courts by disagreeing that Article 106 (6) is
inapplicable.
 Affirmed the High Court’s decision that a majority from among 65 members is a
minimum of 33.
 No, the court does not have jurisdiction to determine whether Mr. Persaud’s
election was invalid.
 No, there was nothing preventing Mr. Persaud from voting the way he did.
 Directions were given for submissions to be made on consequential orders.

RATIO DECIDENI
1. Article 106 (6) speaks to the resignation of the Government if it is defeated on a
“vote of confidence” by a majority of all the elected members. The court stated
that there was no difference between a motion of confidence and a motion of no
confidence and that Article 106 (6) speaks of it as being a linguistic difference.
Both of the motions are subsumed under the heading “confidence motions”.

2. The court made it clear that 106 (6) points in the direction of an absolute majority
where it states it is a “majority of all elected members.” It distinguished Kilman v
Speaker of Parliament of Vanuatu from the present facts. Although this case
supported the concept of an absolute majority, it must be examined based on its
particular facts. Therefore, since the Assembly comprises of 65 members (an odd
number), the formula could not be applied since it would lead to illogical results.
3. Section 155(1) states that someone who pledges allegiance to another state is not
qualified to be a member of the National Assembly. Article 163(1) of the
constitution has vested the courts with the exclusive jurisdiction to determine
questions of the qualification of members of the National Assembly. However,
this jurisdiction is exercised in a strict sense. Section 3 of the National Assembly
(Validity of Elections) Act makes it clear that any questions concerning the
qualification of a member to sit in the National Assembly “shall….be determined
by it.” A petition must be presented within 28 days after the results of the
election. The court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to determine matters which must
be raised by way of an election petition filed.

4. Article 156 (3) states that one would elapse as a member if he no longer supports
the list or if the party has lost confidence in him. There was no constitutional
provision that prohibited Mr. Persaud from voting against his party. Further,
members of Parliament should not be denied the freedom of voting according to
their conscience. In United Democratic Movement v Speaker of the National
Assembly, the court stated members are free to follow their conscience and not
swear to their political parties as such, Mr. Persaud possessed this freedom.

5. The court advised that the government serve as a “caretaker” until the next
elections since it would explain the three month deadline.

OBITER DICTA
Justice Saunders stated that even if the court had jurisdiction to declare Mr.
Persaud’s election to be void, he would agree that Article 165(2) would preserve
the validity of his vote.
COURSE: LA 12C – LEGAL METHODS
ASSIGNMENT #1
[CASE BRIEF]

USI: 1034493
LECTURER: MAG.ANNETTE SINGH
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 10/18/2019