Presidential third term decision… CJ omitted, ignored certain aspects of law in ruling – Christopher Ram

Aug 16, 2015 News

---

Chartered Accountant and Attorney- at-law, Chris Ram is convinced that Chief Justice, (Ag) Ian Chang  omitted or ignored certain aspects of law, when he handed down a ruling that paves the way for a person to serve as President of Guyana for more than two terms.
Sharing his sentiments on the Ram and McRae website, Ram detailed that among other aspects of law, the CJ failed to address Article 65 of the Constitution in the ruling in the constitutional case, which was filed on behalf of Georgetown resident, Cedric Richardson.
The Article speaks of Parliament’s powers to make laws. Article 65 of the Constitution stipulates that “Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Guyana.”
According to Ram that Article was examined extensively in a highly respected decision of the Guyana Court of Appeal in A.G. v. Mohamed Ally (1987) 41 WIR 176 CA Guyana and was described by the then Chancellor Massiah as words which “do not define and set the limits of the categories of legislation which Parliament might properly enact, but merely state in short formulation, the fullness of Parliament’s legislative authority.”
“At the very least, the Court should have offered some explanation for not considering these words,” he said. Ram said that compounding the error of omission, is that the decision also ignores the Constitution’s specific authority to Parliament to alter the Constitution.
He noted that Article 66 of the constitution states that “Subject to the special procedure set out in article 164, Parliament may alter this Constitution.”
“Mr. Chang has demonstrated a tendency to dissect and examine a single word of the Constitution – as he did in the Budget Cut Case – but yet ignores an entire Article or two!” Ram contended.
The case was filed on behalf of Georgetown resident, Cedric Richardson.
Richardson had sought an interpretation of the provisions in the constitution regarding the two-term limit for the Guyana presidency.
He questioned whether a referendum should not have been held, instead of the National Assembly having the powers to decide to limit the number of terms of a President to two.
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 to by former President Bharrat Jagdeo, which made it clear that, “A person elected as President after the year 2000, is eligible for re-election only once.
However on July 9, the Chief Justice (CJ) ruled that the presidential term limit imposed by the 2001 amendment to Article 90 of the Constitution is unconstitutional, unless it is approved by the citizens in a referendum.
The Chief Justice had ruled that the approval of the people through a referendum is needed for placing term limits on the Presidency and that the 2001 constitutional amendment is invalid and without legal effect.
Chang, in his ruling, asserted that: “There can be no doubt that Parliament could have altered Article 90 by two-thirds majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly.
But in so far as those alterations diminished and further restricted democratic sovereignty which, under Article 164(2) was procedurally protected by the requirement of a referendum for its legal validity and efficacy, the holding of a referendum was required.”
The Attorney-at-law pointed out page 8 of the ruling, in which the acting Chief Justice writes, “The articles of the Constitution having received the favourable vote of the electorate in a referendum represent the direct vote of the people.” “That is simply not true. The 1980 Constitution was never put to the electorate,” Ram added.
He  noted that the CJ also ignored submission by the then Attorney General on the history of the Amendment and the words of the Leader of the House Mr. Reepu Daman Persaud in introducing Bill 14 of 2000 which was passed and assented to by then President Bharrat Jagdeo.
He quoted Persaud as saying that “This Bill broadens the scope of democracy and removes certain powers which are considered dictatorial.”
The lawyer also noted that submissions and cogent arguments made by attorneys involved in the case were strangely not mentioned in the 37 -page decision.
Ram asserted that “these omissions and commission seem to be of sufficient significance as to undermine the entire ruling, suggesting as it does that the submissions and arguments of the defendants have so little merit that they do not even deserve an acknowledgment by the Court.”
He noted further argued that it is hard to accept that Justice Chang really believes that Act 17 of 2000 setting term limits, a feature of an increasing number of Constitutions, had the effect of destroying or weakening the basic elements of the Guyana Constitution.
This, according to the lawyer is, the only ground on which the Judge could hold Act 17 of 2000, unconstitutional.

---

---