CCJ to rule on presidential term limits Tuesday

Jun 23, 2018 News

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has announced that it is set to deliver a judgment Tuesday on the all-important presidential term limits case.
According to the Trinidad-headquartered court, this, and a number of other matters engaging the CCJ in the coming week, has constitutional implications.
“The CCJ will also give its decision on the validity of an amendment to the Guyana Constitution that altered the qualification to be elected as President of that country.”
CCJ explained that among other things, there was an amendment which prohibited candidates who had served two presidential terms of office from serving a third term.
The case is widely seen in Guyana as a play by former President Bharrat Jagdeo to attempt a run at a third term.
Under the current arrangements, there was a deal hammered out between the Government, under the People’s Progressive Party/Civic and the Opposition, in the 2000s, to halt any president from serving more than two terms.
The court case questioned the validity of the law which was blessed by the National Assembly at the time.
According to the statement yesterday, the judgment will come up at 2:00 pm. The case had involved The Attorney General of Guyana vs. Cedric Richardson.
“The Court of Appeal had ruled, by a majority of 2-1 with the present Acting Chancellor dissenting, that the amendment indirectly breached Articles 1 and 9 of the Constitution which Articles entrench the concept that Guyana is a secular, democratic state in which sovereignty belongs to the people of Guyana.”
Richardson, though his lawyers, had earlier successfully argued in the Guyanese courts that the amendment breached his right to elect a President of his choice.
The Government of Guyana, under the Coalition, took the Court of Appeal decision to the CCJ.
In March, a team of lawyers representing the Government of Guyana had presented arguments before the CCJ seeking to overturn the decision.
The action was originally filed in 2014 by Richardson, a private citizen.
The team representing the State of Guyana, lead by Attorney General, Basil Williams SC, argued in March that among other things, the amendment could have been made by Parliament and not only via referendum.
In his submissions, Attorney General Williams noted that two essential issues that should be considered in the matter are sovereignty and democracy. He noted that the Act 17 of 2001 was passed following widespread consultation and a unanimous decision in Parliament.
In fact, he noted that the Act was assented to by the then President Bharrat Jagdeo, who is the subject in the matter.
Responding to inquiries from the Judges in relation to the background of the amendment, the AG told the Court that the Act was drafted following post-election trauma in 1999. He explained that there was agreement between the two political groups towards the de-escalation of conflict pursuant to deliberations and consultations undertaken by a CARICOM Mission.
Williams explained that the Herdmanston Accord (agreement) was birthed as a result of the consultations. He noted that the accord led the way for among other things constitutional reform, from which Act 17 of 2001 was formed.
The Attorney General admitted, however, that no documents were filed in support of these claims.
In his representation of Richardson, Trinidadian Senior Counsel, Douglas Mendes, noted the importance of fighting the case on its merits and delay could not be raised as a defence. “The delay cannot effect or cannot constitutionalise an unconstitutional statute.”
Mendes said the delay cannot constitutionalise a void act, and it should not be used as a basis to throw out the case, because it would be unfair to use it to protect unconstitutional law.
“That is wrong, it is wrong and unfair and it is contrary to the rule of law,” he said in reaction to the decision by Attorney General Williams, “to raise that as an issue now instead of in Guyana’s High Court and Court of Appeal”.
At the Court of Appeal, Justice Carl Singh, Chancellor and Justice of Appeal B S Roy, ruled in favour of Richardson while the then acting Chief Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards dissented.
But the AG, supported by Minister Raphael Trotman, filed the case with the CCJ citing a number of errors they believed were made by the local courts, including that the alteration of Article 90 of the Constitution of Guyana by Act No 17 of 2001, diluted and diminished the democratic sovereignty and the sovereignty of the people under Articles 1 and 9 of the Constitution of Guyana, respectively.

Latest News

CCJ to rule on presidential term limits Tuesday

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 4th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

President’s College upstage Santa Rosa to advance into Quarters

CWI withdraws penalty on John Campbell following...

‘One Guyana’ 3×3 Quest Basketball opens...

GCA, East Coast surge to huge wins

GFF/Concacaf kick off two-day Match Commissioners...

Chase’s Academic outclass Bartica to move...

Features/Columnists

Anticipation without preparation

The U.S. “Joining” the Commonwealth: an unreasonable expectation

Access to information should not come to this

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

CCJ to rule on presidential term limits Tuesday

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 4th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]