The Government shouldn’t have taken talks of a No-Confidence motion coming from the Opposition lightly. More in this report from
Though, he has made public his interpretation from a Legal standpoint that the Opposition has not succeeded in its No-Confidence Motion, Attorney at Law Nigel Hughes has no intentions of moving to the courts to seek an interpretation, as a citizen.
Article 106 according to Hughes was amended during the 2000 Constitutional discussions. After extensive deliberations, ‘the majority of all elected the members clause was injected’. But, why prior to the vote, the Attorney did not voice his legal opinion?
The Former Chairman of the Alliance For Change felt that the initial threats of such motion against the Government should never have been taken lightly.
Hughes maintains that if he was active politically, some of the issues raised by Charandass would have been looked at. Since those are not concerns he alone echoed. Commenting on the strength of the AFC, Hughes says, the data alone can tell. Meanwhile, the Hughes made it clear, that if the APNU-AFC came knocking on his door to become, its presidential candidate, he wouldn’t be interested. End.