Latest update February 11th, 2025 2:15 PM
Jul 13, 2015 Letters
Dear Editor,
The Chief Justice’s ruling nullifying the amendment (on term limit) to the original Burnham constitution was expected as I had penned a week before the General Elections. It is not that term limit is unconstitutional.
Voters should have a voice in how they will be governed (drafting a constitution and approving it). People are very supportive of term limit as well as reducing the powers of the executive as I obtained in opinion polls.
The parliament should have sought the approval of the population on any constitutional matter and why not — If the people are supreme and all powers flow from them, then give the people the power to decide on all constitutional issues as is done in the US and several other countries. The people are always considered as fools when it comes to empowering them.
With regards to the Judge’s ruling, in short, the Chief Judge said amendments to the Burnham constitution must be approved by voters in a referendum. It is noted that the 1980 Burnham constitution was never approved in a referendum by the populace. So the Judge’s recent ruling provides a unique opportunity to challenge the validity of the Burnham constitution since it was never approved by voters. Public interest lawyers should file a petition challenging the legality of the constitution.
The parliament faces an important decision on the Burnham constitution. All three parties (PPP, PNC, AFC) represented in parliament approve of the Burnham constitution. Since they love it so much, why don’t they muster the courage and put the amended Burnham constitution to a vote before the nation?
They won’t risk testing the constitution’s popularity with voters because they don’t trust the voters. They (all three parties) don’t want to empower voters; politicians don’t like when people become educated and powerful. In the unlikely event that they agree to hold a referendum, what if the constitution is rejected and in all indications the people will reject the amendment? Do we go back to the original Burnham constitution?
In several NACTA polls I conducted over the years, people are not supportive of the Burnham constitution. The government should present the amended Burnham constitution and the one it replaced (independence constitution) before the voters to choose one.
Since the three parties are very supportive of the Burnham constitution, and they were the ones who drafted the amendments, they can campaign for it. If rejected by voters, they should return to the independence constitution since voters would be suggesting they want nothing to do with that fraudulent constitution.
I read where APNU+AFC spokesperson, Minister Harmon, says the government plans to challenge the High Court’s ruling (SN Jul 11). Since the government is giving its approval of the constitution, in challenging the ruling, why not give the people an opportunity to voice their opinion in a vote? And if it is rejected, agree to return to the independence constitution.
Vishnu Bisram
Feb 11, 2025
Kaieteur Sports–Guyanese squash players delivered standout performances at the 2025 BCQS International Masters Tournament, held at the Georgetown Club, with Jason-Ray Khalil, Regan Pollard, and...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News-If you had asked me ten years ago what I wanted for Guyana, I would have said a few things:... more
Antiguan Barbudan Ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The upcoming election... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]