PRESIDENTIAL TERM-LIMITS IN LIMBO

Feb 25, 2017 Editorial, Features / Columnists

It was bound to happen. The 21-month-old government now finds itself between a rock and a hard place due largely to its own doing. Most of its problems have resulted from its slowness to act, and it being embroiled in too many scandals. The ruling by the Court of Appeal against presidential term limits has compounded its problems even more. Whether it is a coincidence or not, the decision by both the acting Chief Justice and the acting Chancellor seems suspicious, especially after the government refused to extend their tenure. If nothing else, the ruling has placed presidential term limits in limbo.
In a two to one majority, the court ruled that presidential terms limits are unconstitutional and that a president who has served two terms could seek re-election for a third term. Chancellor Carl Singh and Justice of Appeal, B.S Roy, have upheld the decision of former Chief Justice Ian Chang that presidential term limit was unlawful as such constitutional changes should have certified by a referendum.
The only dissenter was Acting Chief Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards who said that the amendment to limit presidents to two terms is not unconstitutional.
In handing down the court’s decision, the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary made it clear that any law that would have the effect of suppressing the right to freely elect someone of their choice is unconstitutional. He asserted that in keeping with democratic principles, the people are entitled to freely elect their representatives.
He reasoned that such disqualification will further diminish the sovereign and democratic entitlements of Guyanese and that the deeply entrenched Articles 1 and 9 of the Constitution could only be changed by referendum to achieve legal validity and efficacy.
Acting Chief Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards has stated that the people of Guyana in whom sovereignty resides, exercise their sovereignty through the representatives of Parliament and Local Democratic organs. Since the sovereignty of the people is exercised by their representatives, the amendment did not alter, dilute, affect or amend Articles 1 and 9 of the Constitution.
Justice Cummings-Edwards said the people gave that power to Parliament to change the constitution in keeping with their desire to have the right to vote or choose who should be their president. She added that the appellant has failed to prove the amendment that provides for term limits was unconstitutional.
This exercise began in 2000 when the National Assembly passed amendments to Act 17 of 2001 governing eligibility to seek the Presidency of Guyana. Those amendments made it ineligible for someone who would have been elected to serve twice as President to seek a third term. The appeal had been filed against a ruling by then acting Chief Justice Ian Chang in July 2015. Justice Chang’s ruling was based on a constitutional motion brought by private citizen who challenged the two term limits created by the amendments to Article 90 which were enacted in 2001 after the bipartisan Constitution reform process.
The Acting Chief Justice ruled that Article No.17 of 2001 is without legal effect because it does not comply with the other articles of the constitution.
Chang further stated that while the constitution provides for representative democracy, such representative democracy cannot infringe on the popular sovereignty from which it derives and which is entrenched by the requirement of the referendum.
He opined that the two-term limit of Presidents has diluted the rights of citizens to elect the person of their choice to govern the country regardless of the number of times he/she was elected.
The decision by the Acting Chief Justice and the Chancellor came at the end of their tenure. However, there is still hope, because the court’s decision was not unanimous. The case is now destined to the Caribbean Court of Justice which will be the final arbiter.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News