Skip to main content

Reply to "The Constitution is clear."

Not sure why the focus is just on term limits.  Hundred of thousands of overseas based Guyanese are also affected by this Amendment.  I filed this blog on SN, not sure if they will post it.

Good letter.  Title 1 deals with protection of fundamental rights not as stated “Title 1 of the Constitution expressly states what are citizens’ “Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.”

Article 40 is specific to fundamental rights and nowhere is there a definition of what fundamental rights are.  To argue that running for President as a natural born Guyanese is a privilege and not a fundamental right is absurd.  Of course the parliamentarians want to make it a privilege.

Article 90 is just not about a two term limit it is also affects hundreds of thousands of overseas based natural born Guyanese.   To argue that a change in the constitution that affect hundreds of thousands of people is not a question of fundamental rights is preposterous.

Here are pertinent sections of Chang’s ruling:

While it is true that no provision of the Constitution of Guyana is immutable or immune from alteration, it would not be legally possible for a majority or 2/3 majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly to alter a provision of the Constitution in diminution or dilution of the normative characteristics which define and determine Guyana as an indivisible, secular, democratic and sovereign State.  Otherwise, a majority or 2/3 majority of the elected members of the Assembly would be supreme and not the Constitution itself so that the Constitution itself could be denuded of its essential normative character by the National AssemblyOne cannot mechanically use the procedural provision of the Constitution (Article 164) in isolation to subvert the Constitution itself.  That would be possible only with the approval of the electorate.

 

The court therefore holds that Act No. 17 of 2001, in so far as it seeks to trench on and to dilute the pre-existing democratic rights of the electorate to elect as President a person of their own choice, needed a referendum and is invalid and without legal effect for reason of non-compliance with Article 164 (2) (a) and/or repugnancy with Article 1 (democratic society) and Article 9 (sovereignty belongs to the people) – both of which Articles require a referendum for any alteration.

 Article 90 (2) and (3) purports to render a person who has served as President for at least two terms (whether consecutive or not) ineligible for election or re-election as President.  There can be no doubt that the purported effect of the alterations to Article 90 is to render persons previously qualified or eligible for Presidential candidature as unqualified or ineligible therefor. Among these would be perhaps hundreds of persons who have acquired citizens of Guyana by registration and perhaps thousands of non-resident citizens of Guyana by birth or descent.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
×
×
×
×
×
×