The challenge to the legality of the presidential term limit claims that barring two-term presidents like Bharrat Jagdeo from holding office again restricts the voters’ choice of candidates and such a restriction could only be effected through a referendum.
Cedrick Richardson, who initiated the challenge, claims in his supporting affidavit that he has been advised by his attorney that Jagdeo is not legally prohibited from being a candidate for presidential elections by Act No. 17 of 2001, which added two clauses to the 1980 constitution to allow for re-election only once.
This court action comes just three months before Guyanese are expected to head to the polls, raising questions about its timing and the motives of Richardson, who identifies himself in court documents as a 50-year-old West Ruimveldt resident. He was listed as a driver at the time of the last elections.
Stabroek News was unable to make contact with Richardson but understands that he is within the employ of the lawyers who filed the High Court writ on Monday, attorneys Shaun Allicock, Oneidge Walrond-Allicock, Emily Dodson and Coleen Sparman.
Asked about the genesis of his client’s action on Monday, Allicock had told Stabroek News that Richardson is a Guyanese and one who exercises his voting rights and who feels that his constitutional rights have been affected by the amendments.
At the moment, the matter is being reviewed by acting Chief Justice Ian Chang and he is expected to set a date for a hearing shortly.
Efforts to contact Jagdeo yesterday for comment were futile.
Jagdeo, who was elected in 2006 and 2011, is not eligible to run for another term due to the alteration of Article 90 of the constitution with the addition of clause (2), which states, “A person elected as President after the year 2000 is eligible for re-election only once,” and clause (3), which states, “A person who acceded to the Presidency after the year 2000 and served therein on a single occasion for not less than such period as may be determined by the National Assembly is eligible for elections as President only once.”
In the summons, Richardson claims that Act No. 17 of 2001, which was passed by a two-thirds majority of all elected members of the National Assembly, “unconstitutionally curtails and restricts his sovereign and democratic rights and freedom” as a qualified elector “to elect the person of former President Bharrat Jagdeo” as Executive President.
Richardson is questioning whether the Act speaks to any reason for the non-compliance with Article 164 (2) (b); whether it has the consequence of restricting and curtailing the democratic rights and freedom of the electorate by purporting to eliminate from the executive presidential candidate a person who has been re-elected as executive president; whether it required for its legal validity the holding of a referendum of the people; and whether it diminishes and reduces the level of democracy enjoyed by the electorate prior to the purported alteration and therefore required the holding of a referendum for such alteration.
In his affidavit in support of the summons, Richardson said that he has voted in every elections since 1993. He said that he has been advised and believes that Act. No. 17 of 2001 is unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect since “it was not passed following the holding of a referendum even though it purports to take away the democratic right and freedom of the electorate to elect as president a person who had been re-elected once.”
Attorney General Anil Nandlall and Speaker Raphael Trotman are listed as defendants in the originating summons.
