Dear Editor,
I believe that Mr Lincoln Lewis is one of the most unbiased contributors to your letters column which is why I pay special attention to his letters. In his letter published on February 26, under the title ‘The Constitution is clear’ he tried to bring clarity, as he sees it, to the debate surrounding the Appeal Court’s decision to uphold retired Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang’s ruling on changes to Article 90 of the Guyana Constitution.
Editor, I respectfully disagree with some of the arguments raised by Mr Lewis in his letter. He stated that “Title 1 of the Constitution expressly states what are citizens’ Fundamental rights and freedoms, and nowhere among these articles is it stated that being elected or contesting the presidency is a fundamental right.”
It is in Chapter III, aptly named ‘Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual’ where Article 40 (1) states that “Every person in Guyana is entitled to the basic right to a happy, creative and productive life, free from hunger, ignorance and want. That right includes fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual.”
There is no attempt in Article 40 to define what fundamental rights are. In fact, it would be impossible to have an all-encompassing definition of fundamental rights.
It is Article 40(2) which speaks to Title 1, which Mr Lewis referred to. Article 40(2) clearly states that the provisions of Title 1 shall have the effect for the purpose of affording protection to an individual’s fundamental rights. So Title 1 is about the protection of fundamental rights, not about providing an all-encompassing definition of fundamental rights.
Mr Lewis’s argument that “being a president is not a right, it is a privilege” is reasonable, but that is not the point of contention here. In any case, it will be the electors who will be doing the hiring and firing of the President to use Mr Lewis’s example that a janitor cannot expect to be hired as a mechanical engineer. Anyway, the point in contention is being able to run for president under Article 90 before it It is unfortunate that media coverage gives the impression that changes to Article 90 deal only with the ability to run for a third term. Changes to Article 90 make overseas-based natural born Guyanese and Guyanese students studying in foreign lands for a period over 4 years second-class citizens. This is an insult to the dignity and a dilution of the fundamental rights of these affected Guyanese.
For those not familiar with all the changes to Article 90, Article 90(1)(b) requires 7 years of continuous residency in Guyana just prior to the elections before a natural born Guyanese citizen can run for president. I am not familiar with any major democracy that has such an onerous requirement. The USA has a 14 years residency requirement, but it is for any period of the natural born person’s life, not for a continuous period just prior to an election.
In addition, potentially brilliant Guya-nese who have no intention of emigrating would also be victims of the changes under Article 90(4)(b) where they stand to lose their “continuity of residence” if they study abroad for more than 4 years.
In his ruling retired Chief Justice (ag) Chang noted that “It does appear that, although the challenge of the plaintiff is only to the constitutionality of Article 90 (2) and (3), Article 90 (1) (a) and (b), as altered by Act No 17 of 2001, also purports to disqualify for Presidential candidature citizens of Guyana by registration and citizens of Guyana not resident in Guyana on the date of nomination and for at least 7 years immediately preceding that date.” Consequently, I would expect that any challenge brought to the Caribbean Court of Justice will have to address these aspects of the ruling also.
I wish to state that I support a two-term limit, but I would never support an amendment that treats me like a second-class citizen. Let’s not forget that these potential second-class citizens are the ones that kept the Guyana afloat through the barrel economy and remittance, which is Guyana largest industry to date.
It is interesting to note that the PPP and PNC can come together to kill competition from potentially half of the Guyanese populace. Unfortunately, they cannot come together to solve Guyana’s many problems.
Yours faithfully,
Vijay Puran
