Lawyer seeks parliamentary sitting postponement at CCJ hearing

No-confidence motion cases

…AG says Appeal Court ruling means “business as usual”

With the National Assembly scheduled to meet on Friday, legal counsel for former Alliance for Change (AFC) parliamentarian Charrandas Persaud has warned that he will file legal action to bar the holding of the parliamentary sitting if the sitting is not postponed.

Attorney-at-Law Sanjeev Datadin

This was announced during a pre-trial hearing at the Caribbean Court of Justice on Wednesday in the case of Christopher Ram vs the Attorney General and Opposition. This is one of three no-confidence motion related cases that will be heard by the CCJ next month.
Issuing this warning was Attorney-at-Law Sanjeev Datadin, who is Charrandas Persaud’s legal representative.
“We’ve learnt from the press that there’s a sitting of Parliament on [Friday]. And the schedule is to pass legislation related to finance and more importantly, to pass legislation for the oil and gas sector.”
“Now having regard for what is before the courts and what are the implications, one way or another, of the vote of December 21, it’s our respectful submission that that should be refrained from. We’ve not made a specific application to the court because we intended to raise it with the court and solicit from the Attorney General an undertaking.”

Attorney General Basil Williams

Datadin warned, however, that if the sitting is not postponed then he will file a formal application to force the postponement. CCJ President Adrian Saunders, however, deferred from commenting on Datadin’s announcement unless a formal application is before the courts.
Responding to this development on Wednesday, Attorney General Basil Williams did not take too kindly to the attorney’s move. According to Williams, the Appeal Court’s ruling means that it is business as usual unless the CCJ says otherwise.

Pre-trial
Prior to Datadin’s request, the CCJ had been dealing with case management matters for the case ahead of the actual hearing, set to be held from May 9 to May 10. Justice Saunders had noted that due to varying lengths of written submissions, it was not necessary to give everyone equal time. In view of this, he informed that Douglas Mendes, appearing for the Opposition Leader, would be allotted one hour from 09:00 to 10:00h.
He related that Mendes would be followed by Sanjeev Datadin on behalf of Charrandas Persaud. This will be followed by Kamal Ramkarran on behalf of Christopher Ram, bringing the session to 11:00h.
Saunders noted that after a 15-minute break, Eamon Courtenay would be given an hour to make his case, followed by lunch at 12:15h. Afterwards, counsel for Herbert Reid and Minister of State Joseph Harmon would be granted half an hour each.
“The written submissions that have been submitted [are] full and detailed, and there really is little need for extensive oral advocacy. We proposed that, because these are consolidated matters, that counsels for Mr Jagdeo; Mr Persaud and Mr Ram will follow each other in that order. Their submissions would be followed by counsels for the Attorney General; Mr Reid and for Mr Harmon,” Saunders informed the court.
“The Attorney General has submitted a cross-appeal so what we would [do] is that when counsel for Messer Jagdeo; Mr Charrandas Persaud, and Mr Ram, when they make their submissions, they will address the matters on the cross-appeal as well as the matters which constitute their own appeals.”
The three cases deal with Christopher Ram vs the Attorney General of Guyana, the Leader of the Opposition and Joseph Harmon; Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo vs the Attorney General of Guyana, Dr Barton Scotland and Joseph Harmon; and Charrandas Persaud vs Compton Herbert Reid, Dr Barton Scotland, Bharrat Jagdeo and Joseph Harmon; the last of which deals with Persaud’s eligibility to vote in the House.
In the case of Ram vs the Attorney General, the political activist had petitioned the High Court to have Government resign and President David Granger call elections within 90 days as stipulated by Articles 106 (6) and (7) of the Constitution.
The Court of Appeal had ruled in a 2:1 split decision that a majority of 34 votes would have been needed to validly pass the no-confidence motion brought against the Government last year.
While Justice Rishi Persaud had dismissed the appeal and conferred with the ruling of the High Court, his colleague appellate Judges allowed the State’s appeal.
Both Justices Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Dawn Gregory opined that while 33 is the majority of the 65-member National Assembly, the successful passage of a no-confidence motion requires an “absolute majority” of 34, and not the “simple” majority of 33 that has been used to pass ordinary business in the House.

Original Post
yuji22 posted:

Thanks to our heroes. 

Antiman Shoeman is in hiding. He is fast asleep with a bottle of Piwari in hand. 

I think you need to be looking for Ifaart who seems to be hiding from the public excoriating he is receiving from all and sundry for being a fraud. Shuman is doing what he should do. He has a target and a plan and it does not need to be seen in public...especially not as ifaart to defend against being a fake. I bet that fat fellow is girding his multiple stomachs and slopping some brew to ease his mind from the pummeling he is receiving because he knows that fraud label will remain.

ksazma posted:

Unless the quorum is 33 or lower, whether the Coalition folks show up in parliament or not will have no effect as no bills can be passed without some NO votes from the Opposition.

???

ignorance just married incoherence on steroids

smfh

Banna, stick to your favorite lolo and bt obsession. The doors of Parliament are not padlocked so the 33 Coalition fools are not blocked from going there. My argument was about whether going there had any substantive value given that the requisite quorum needed to pass any bill is more than the 33 voters that Coalition has. The Coalition desparately needs some PPP MPs to vote NO in order for their 33 YES votes to matter. It seems like your lolo and bt obsession is blurring your vision. The morning too early for your lolo and bt nastiness.

ksazma posted:

Banna, stick to your favorite lolo and bt obsession. The doors of Parliament are not padlocked so the 33 Coalition fools are not blocked from going there. My argument was about whether going there had any substantive value given that the requisite quorum needed to pass any bill is more than the 33 voters that Coalition has. The Coalition desparately needs some PPP MPs to vote NO in order for their 33 YES votes to matter. It seems like your lolo and bt obsession is blurring your vision. The morning too early for your lolo and bt nastiness.

Charranrass want to maintain his fame, but the AG was right to say business as usual. The courts of Guyana has the final saying and that what it means, business as usual until the CCJ says otherwise. Coolie can prappa push them luck, eh. 

Billy Ram Balgobin posted:

The ruling coalition parties cannot win the next elections and they know that.  They're going to hang on for a while but they will fall ultimately.  No need to stress. They don't have too much time left in office. 

With Irfaaart leading the pack rats, I doubt whether the PPP can secure a majority.

Mr.T posted:

Charrandas has pledged his loyalty to Canada. He therefore has no legal right to dictate anything to Guyana. He is not a spokesman for the Canadian government,

Just like you being loyal to the Queen and yet wants Guyana Oil.

Charrandass didn't understand the constitution until the Supreme Court rules that he is illegal to vote in parliament. He took his law degree and push it in his BT. His sister in NY is singing in Mandir and she is a big crook. I know her very well. 

Prince posted:

Charrandass didn't understand the constitution until the Supreme Court rules that he is illegal to vote in parliament. He took his law degree and push it in his BT. His sister in NY is singing in Mandir and she is a big crook. I know her very well. 

Birds of a feather!

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×
×