Dear Editor,
The Guyana Appeal Court decision: 3 appeal Judges; Decision 2: that NCM not validly passed; and 1 that the No-confidence Motion (NCM) validly passed.
Now is the 2 Judges a majority; should a majority decision have been required: the Appeal Court to apply the same reasoning and logic to their decision as they applied to the NCM.
The 2 v 1 = 3 divided by 2 = 1.5. As you cannot have a 1/2 a Judge, then round up to 2 and add 1 = 3. So the Appeal Court ruling should have required 3 votes to pass and not 2.
As Justice Persaud voted against, and his vote is require to give a majority; why was this treated as a vote deeming the NCM not validly passed? The Appeal Court has erred in not applying the same logic and Maths to their decision as they applied to the NCM.
