For now, it appears that the Attorney General Basil Williams is right. To quote this minister of legal affairs, the “constitution is wrong.” Although it speaks of a “majority” it really means an “absolute majority.” This is so because someone put words into the mouth of the constitution.
As a result, a new era of jurisprudence has begun. An attorney can now argue that any word in the constitution lacks its intended, plain meaning. Their only challenge in court will be to sound “attractive,” which is now the most compelling adjective in our legal lexicon.
It ought to be said again: someone put words into the mouth of the constitution. Indeed, they were so anxious to do so, that in the process a few words fell into the mouths of attorneys who appeared recently before the Court of Appeal.
The public is told that these attorneys “accepted that Article 106 required an absolute majority.” If all of the attorneys accepted that an “absolute majority” was needed for the passage of a no-confidence motion, then there would not have been any litigation, because everyone would have been in agreement.
Voila! So what happened here? The public deserves to know exactly what happened in that courtroom; or outside of it.
After all, they may have to strike the word “majority” from the constitution, because its framers had no knowledge of fractions, or the word “absolute,”.
Or that since slavery ended, a half vote or a half person is no longer allowed.