Dear Editor,
The Chief Justice’s ruling nullifying the amendment (on term limits) to the original Burnham constitution was expected, as I had penned a week before the general elections. It is not that term limits are unconstitutional. Voters should have a voice in how they will be governed (drafting a constitution and approving it). People are very supportive of term limits as I found in opinion polls.
In short, the Chief Justice said that amendments to the Burnham constitution must be approved by voters in a referendum. It is noted that the 1980 Burnham constitution was never approved in a referendum by the populace. So the Justice’s recent ruling provides a unique opportunity to challenge the validity of the Burnham constitution since it was never approved by voters. Public interest lawyers should file a petition challenging the legality of the constitution.
The parliament faces an important decision on the Burnham constitution. All three parties represented in parliament approve of the Burnham constitution. Since they love it so much, why don’t they muster the courage and put the amended Burnham constitution to a vote before the nation? They won’t risk testing the constitution’s popularity with voters because they don’t want to empower voters. In the unlikely event that they agree to hold a referendum, what if the constitution is rejected? Do we go back to the original Burnham constitution?
In several Nacta polls I conducted over the years, people are not supportive of the Burnham constitution. The government should present the amended Burnham constitution and the one it replaced (Independence constitution) before the voters to choose one. Since the three parties are supportive of the Burnham constitution, and they were the ones who drafted the amendments, they can campaign for it. If rejected by voters, they should return to the Independence constitution since voters would be suggesting they want nothing to do with that fraudulent constitution.
I read where APNU+AFC spokesperson, Minister Harmon, says the government plans to challenge the High Court’s ruling (SN, Jul 11). Since the government is giving its approval of the constitution, in challenging the ruling, why not give the people an opportunity to voice their opinion in a vote? And if it is rejected, agree to return to the Independence constitution.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
