No Confidence valid

Captain · 02-01-2019, 03:26 PM · 1 person reading this discussion

#1
Guyana’s National Assembly consists of 65 elected members. A majority of those members is 33, declared Chief Justice (CJ) Roxane George yesterday as she decreed the no-confidence motion passed in the National Assembly on December 21, 2018, is valid.

#2
deh invading next door soon. deh go invade allyuh too..say is by mistake :woohoo: :woohoo:

#3
Arithmetic problem had to involve a Chief Justice ....
thought Guyana natives were brilliant in Mathematics ...:woohoo:

#4
The APNU/AFC government presented a campaign manifesto that seemed refreshing and in spite of the PNC's unsavory past some non-traditional supporters were willing to give them a chance, spurred on by the inclusion of the AFC. Given that they won the parliament by one seat because of the refusal of then GECOM Commissioner. Sr. Surujbali who refused a recount in region eight where the PPP lost by one vote and also given that they won the presidency by only about 5,000 votes one would have thought they would stick to their campaign promises and set Guyana, finally on the road that hitherto been impossible to find. Vain hope. From day one their true intentions were revealed but their current response to the no confidence motion harks back to the darkest days of Burnhamism and their effrontery is simply refusing to follow constitutional mandates and court rulings set a very frightening landscape. That the PNC supporters who would often accuse many of us of not been critical enough of the excesses of the Jagdeo government, even though we were rather critical, I say where are your push back against the current machinations of the APNU/AFC government? Burnham had his rigged elections which a few are seeking to 'revise'. Now Granger, that good Burnham chela has his 'opinion' which he ha That 'opinion' now apparently has become the underpinning of his political policy and practice.d already expressed in refuting previous court rulings and which is now reinforced with further refuting of both the chief justice's ruling and constitutional mandates. Its just a hop, a skip and a walk to full flown Burnhamism!

From The Archives

Older threads about similar topics


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)