Georgetown: If the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) secure victory at the General Elections in 2020 former President Bharrat Jagdeo have signaled his intention to formally return to Government.
Jagdeo’s announcement was made Saturday ahead of Tuesday’s ruling by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on his third term presidential term limits case.
Term limits agreed upon between the PPP Government and the Opposition in the 2000s halted any president from serving more than two terms.
Jagdeo demitted office as President in 2011 due to presidential term limits and was not formally involved with the party’s governance of the country.
The case before the CCJ is widely seen in Guyana as a play by former President Bharrat Jagdeo to attempt a run at a third term. The court case, the Attorney General of Guyana vs. Cedric Richardson, questioned the validity of the law which was blessed by the National Assembly and assented to by Jagdeo himself.
Jagdeo has repeatedly told reporters that he is not interested in returning as President. However, many are of the opinion that if there are favorable circumstances he will return as President.
Nevertheless, Jagdeo assured that whatever the ruling is, he will remain the General Secretary of the PPP.
“Unlike the 2011-2015 period where I played no formal part in the PPP administration, I intend to be a formal part of the next PPP government as we resume the implementation of plans to build a better country of which all our people can feel proud,” Jagdeo stated.
He stated that in that capacity, he will continue to spearhead the Party’s struggle for a better life for all Guyanese, especially the working people, the poor and the under-privileged, for racial and national unity and for victory at the polls at the next Local Government, Regional and National Elections.
Jagdeo returned as Opposition Leader when the PPP under the presidency of Donald Ramotar, lost the 2015 General Elections to the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC).
The Court of Appeal in Guyana 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.
The action was originally filed in 2014 by Richardson, a private citizen.
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.
Justice Ian Chang had, in July 2015, ruled in Richardson’s favour, a ruling which, in effect, prompted both the Attorney General and Speaker of the National Assembly, the named parties, to appeal against it.
Justice Chang had said Article No.17 of 2001 is without legal effect, because it does not comply with other articles of the Constitution dealing with repugnancy, democratic society and sovereignty belonging to the people, which require a referendum for any alteration.
Chang had reasoned that Articles 1 and 9 underpin the republican commitment to the fundamental concept of popular sovereignty, or imperium populi, thereby safeguarding against elective despotism by the elected representatives of the people.
Chang had determined that the two-term limit of presidents dilutes the rights of citizens to elect the person they wish to govern their country, regardless of the number of times they wish that person to be head of state.
In his affidavit, Richardson had argued that the purported alteration of the Constitution by Act 17 of 2001 would curtail or delimit the electorate’s choice of presidential candidate by rendering ineligible for the candidature any person who has been re-elected once as president eg, Former President Bharrat Jagdeo.
The Court of Appeal, by a two-one majority, in February 2017, upheld the High Court ruling that the presidential term limit is unconstitutional and void. Now retired Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag), Carl Singh and Justice BS Roy upheld the High Court ruling handed down by former Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang, while then Chief Justice (ag) now Chancellor (ag), Yonette Cummings-Edwards, disagreed.
Back in March 2018, attorneys representing the Attorney-General of Guyana appeared before the full bench of the CCJ to present arguments as to why the Court of Appeal’s ruling in the case of the AG and Raphael Trotman against Cedric Richardson on the presidential term limit should be overturned.
According to the CCJ’s website, the judgment will be delivered at 10:00hrs at the court’s headquarters in Trinidad and Tobago. Tuesday’s judgment will determine whether the Court of Appeal’s decision that an Act passed by the government to amended Article 90 of the Constitution of Guyana by introducing new criteria for eligibility to run for the office of President of the Republic, indirectly breached Articles 1 and 9 of the Constitution.
You must be logged in to post a comment.