Dear Editor,
With respect to the recent court action to overturn the amendment to our constitution requiring term limits, I respectfully submit that the public are being fed red herrings by many who construe this as an attempt by former President Jagdeo to run for the presidency or to abolish term limits altogether. Instead the case for the plaintiff is built around the issue of constitutional amendments without the approval of a referendum. According to the website Parliament.gov.gy: “Early in 1999 an Act of Parliament established the Constitutional Reform Commission. It successfully completed its tasks and submitted its report to the National Assembly by the due date of 17th July, 1999. The Commission made 171 recommendations for constitutional amendments. All amendments, with the exception of those requiring a referendum, have been passed into Acts of Parliament.”
Should it be established that the challenged amendment was one that required a referendum, it would bring into question all of the others made at the time, included among them, for example, one that prevents coalition by parties after elections.
Constitutional scholars can pontificate on the various consequences of all the other amendments being overturned.
It is sad to see that so many of our political pundits and persons have failed to grasp the true enormity this challenge poses to our democracy, and have instead focused on petty name-calling and what I hope is deliberate obfuscation. I would hate to think they were simply too concerned with self-interest to do a proper analysis.
Yours faithfully,
Robin Singh
