Law Association

2019 saw Guyana in constitutional and democratic crisis. On 21 December 2018, 33 MPs voted in favour of a motion of no confidence in the Government. 32 MPs voted against. Accordingly, the Speaker of the Assembly declared the motion had validly passed.

Article 106(6) of Guyana’s Constitution states that the Cabinet, including the President, shall resign if the government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly “on a vote of confidence”. Article 106(7) states that while the Government shall remain in office following defeat, they are required to hold an election within three months, unless two-thirds of the National Assembly determine a longer period.

Accordingly, following the passing of the no-confidence motion, national and regional elections should have been held by 21 March 2019. Instead, two sets of legal challenges ensued, both of which were finally determined by the CCJ in July 2019: see Christopher Ram v Attorney General of Guyana et al [2019] CCJ 10 (AJ) and Zulfikar Mustapha v Attorney General of Guyana and the Chairman of the Guyana Election Commission [2019] CCJ 9 (AJ)).

The main issues for the CCJ in Ram were the number of votes required to pass a vote of no-confidence, whether a member of the Government, Mr Charrandas Persaud, who voted with the Opposition, was ineligible to vote on account of his dual citizenship; and whether Aritcle 106 applied to motions of no confidence. Ultimately the CCJ held that the motion of no confidence had been validly passed. In relation to the three issues, the Court held that the majority required was clearly 33 votes; that Mr. Persaud’s vote was valid despite his dual citizenship, which was not challenged within the timeframe envisioned by the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act and that the reference to ‘a vote of confidence’ in Article 106(6) of the Constitution included ‘a motion of no confidence’.

In Mustapha, the CCJ had to determine whether the Chairman of the Guyana Election Commission (GECOM) was validly appointed. Article 161 of the Constitution provides that the GECOM Chairman would be appointed “by the President from a list of six persons, not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition after meaningful consultation with the non-governmental political parties represented in the National Assembly.” The Opposition Leader submitted three sets of lists but none of the proposed candidates were accepted by the President. As such the President unilaterally appointed a retired judge to the post pursuant to the proviso to Article 161(2) of Constitution. The CCJ held that the appointment was invalid. It emphasised that recourse to the proviso was improper where, as here, the Opposition Leader demonstrated a willingness to engage in good faith the process envisioned by Article 161. The Court also noted that the President should only find a nominee unacceptable for some good reason on objective grounds.

Following both decisions, the CCJ made certain consequential orders requiring the appointment of a new GECOM Chairman with the utmost urgency and calling on the President, National Assembly and GECOM to exercise their responsibilities under Article 106 to hold fresh elections: see Christopher Ram v Attorney General of Guyana et al [2019] CCJ 14 (AJ) and Zulfikar Mustapha v Attorney General of Guyana and the Chairman of the Guyana Election Commission [2019] CCJ 13 (AJ).

However, a prolonged delay followed, caused in part by the failure to agree a suitable candidate for the position of Chairman for the GECOM. Having arrived at a consensus, retired Justice Claudette Singh appointed to the post on July 30, 2019. On September 27, 2019 the President, in a national address, announced an election date of 2 March 2020.

As such, today Guyana finally goes to the polls after a testing year for democracy and the Constitution.

For the full text of the decisions of the CCJ visit https://www.ccj.org/judgments-proceedings/appellate-jurisdiction-judgments/