Skip to main content

Reply to "The Constitution is clear."

Gilbakka posted:

This whole thing started with Cedric Richardson's petition in court. I don't know who the faceless Cedric Richardson is, his age, occupation, etc. Who is paying his lawyer's fees? Ralph Ramkarran says the PPP as a party supports presidential term limits. Obviously someone in the PPP disagrees strongly and may be backing Cedric Richardson.

Why people always think that there has to be a quid pro quo for any decent action by a person?  Why couldn't Richardson be just a concerned citizen such as the Guyanese woman who filed the court case in Britain for the Brexit issue??

I don't know if you were here around 1999-2000 when we were debating this issue on this site.  Here is a bit of my personal "actions" on Article 90 issue.

In 1999 when it looked like the Constitution Reform Commission was going to recommend an ONEROUS residency requirement for running for President I filed comments by email that there should be no such requirements and that people should decide who they want to vote for President. I also wrote many letters in the media and had back and forth discussion with people like Rupert Roopnaraine and Freddie Kissoon whose main argument was that only “people who stayed and fight” should be able to run for President.

When Article 90 got enacted I asked my brother Vic Puran to challenge it in court because the right of overseas based Guyanese were being diluted by the act of members of Parliament and that it should be the people who should decide. Vic did not want to challenge it at that point for reasons I will not state here. However, couple years afterwards Vic told me that it is likely that Article 90 would be voided if challenged. He said he would challenge it if need be.  You can make your own conclusions, but Chang was Vic's best friend. I did not ask him if the talked to Chang about it.

It was just be a matter of time for Article 90 to be challenged so it is not surprising that a citizen challenged it in 2014 when the PPP was still in power. Don't expect the 2/3 who got together to approve Article 90 to challenge it. 

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