Leader of Government Business Dr Roodal Moonilal says government is proceeding with its move of no confidence against Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley despite criticisms that it will have no effect on his position. In an interview, Moonilal said the motion was not meant to remove Rowley as Opposition Leader but to “expose his serious lack of judgment in matters of State.” “The issue is not his removal. The people of Diego Martin will do that along with the PNM members.
“The question is to expose his lack of fitness for office and his horrible lack of judgment in matters of state. The vote of no confidence is meant to highlight the lack of judgment of the Opposition Leader for high public office. We owe the citizens a duty to expose Dr Rowley,” Moonilal said Several political analysts and attorneys have said that moving a motion against Rowley was of little significance.
Former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj said even if the motion succeeded it would be null and void and of no effect. He said that there was no provision for any action, suspension or removal of the Opposition Leader in the Constitution.
On Monday night, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said her party planned to file a motion of no confidence over Rowley’s failure to disclose that Police Complaints Authority Director David West was a witness of his in a defamation case filed against him by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan and Rowley’s decision to support West’s appointment was a conflict of interest.
One constitutional expert said yesterday there was no prohibition in the Constitution to prevent someone from filing a no-confidence motion against the opposition leader. The only part of the Constitution that deals with no-confidence motions is Section 77:1, which is in relation to the Prime Minister. The lawyer spoke on the condition of anonymity. “There is no provision in the Constitution that says you cannot file a no-confidence motion against the opposition leader.
“You can’t imply a prohibition. And if you can, how was the Opposition able to file no-confidence motions against the Speaker of the House, Wade Mark, and Finance Minister, Larry Howai?” he asked. “I don’t know how anyone can say the Constitution prohibits a no-confidence motion against the opposition leader. “It’s difficult to see how it is prohibited,” he said, adding that whether it is politically wise to do so was another matter entirely. The senior counsel noted that the matter needed to be sifted through carefully.
Other legal sources recalled when the former PNM administration sought to have former Speaker Occah Seepaul removed, they searched the Constitution with a fine-tooth comb for justification.