Hearing into Presidential third term ruling to begin Friday

Jan 09, 2017 News

The hearing of the appeal into the Presidential Third ruling is slated to begin on Friday. The matter comes up months after it was filed by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams.

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams

Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo

The APNU-AFC Government had expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling – by former Chief Justice Ian Chang – that an elected President can run for more than two terms.
The ruling, based on Richardson’s Constitutional challenge, was filed in February, 2015. The applicant argued that Act 17 of 2001, which was passed by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly, unconstitutionally curtails and restricts his sovereign and democratic rights and freedom as a qualified elector to elect former President Bharrat Jagdeo as the Executive President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.
Richardson had contended that the limit was unconstitutional and illegal.
He also wanted the court to determine whether the amendment with a referendum should not have been held, instead of the two-thirds majority in the National Assembly having the powers to decide to limit the number of terms. After several months in the court, the former CJ ruled in favour of Richardson’s argument, setting the stage for Jagdeo to have a third term as President.
In his written ruling, Chang, among other things, said that the purported alteration of Article 90 by the Act No. 17 of 2001, in substance and effect, undoubtedly diminishes the democratic rights of the electorate in electing a person of their own choice as President.
When the CJ initially handed down his decision, some legal analysts opined that he erred in his interpretation of the law and noted that the decision should be appealed. Attorney General Williams therefore moved to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court to challenge the decision. In his filed appeal on behalf of the government, Williams stated that he is “dissatisfied with the whole of the decision” handed down by Chang.
The Chief Justice’s (CJ) decision came after a constitutional challenge was taken by Georgetown resident Cedric Richardson. He sought the court’s interpretation of the provisions in the Constitution regarding the two-term limit for Guyana’s presidency.
In his Appeal, Williams posited that Chang “erred and misdirected himself in the law” in ruling that the National Assembly  which passed Act No. 17 of 2001  is unconstitutional  and of no effect as it failed to comply with Article164 (2)(a) of the Constitution.
The Attorney General believes that Chang also erred in ruling that the Act in question, in substance and effect, diminishes the democratic right of the electorate in electing a person of their own choice as President.
Williams also posited that Chang erred in law in not satisfying himself that the Court has jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought.
With these grounds and two others, Williams asked that Chang’s ruling be “wholly set aside.”
In 2000, the Guyana Constitution Reform Commission recommended a maximum of two terms in office for a President. The laws of Guyana were changed in 2001, and assented by former President Bharrat Jagdeo himself, making it clear that, “A person elected as President after the year 2000 is eligible for re-election only once.”
However, while Jagdeo has said that he has no intention holding any jobs in Guyana including that of Head of State, he was recently named Opposition Leader and head of the Peoples’ Progressive Party /Civic, (PPP/C).