As had been threatened after the Appellate Court’s decision against the appellant, former Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman and Attorney General Basil Williams, the former through attorney has applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to approach the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to appeal the ruling on the case originally brought by Cedrick Richardson, a citizen of Guyana.
While the application mentioned four grounds for wishing to file an appeal, and these specifically confined themselves to the constitutional issues raised, some media insisted once again on labelling the matter and its appeals as “the third term” case. This label unnecessarily misdirects attention to the more fundamental constitutional point made in the High Court decision of Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang and reaffirmed by the Appellate Court. To wit that the effect of the Amendment to the Constitution objected to by Richardson was to reduce the sovereignty of the people and in so doing altered the nature of the Constitution and this was only permitted if it were ratified by a referendum of the people. These are now being challenged by former Speaker, Raphael Trotman.
To insist on referring to the case as “third term” is to emphasise the effect rather than the cause of the claimed illegality committed by the Parliament, and brings unnecessary emotion into an issue that goes to the heart of Guyanese citizenship. What makes the label even more inappropriate is the judgement includes three other restraints that the objected-to constitutional change of 2001, placed on the republican rights of Guyanese citizens to vote for a candidate of their choice. These were succinctly spelled out as follows by Justice Chang:
“The purported alteration of Article 90 by Act No 17 of 2001, in substance and effect, undoubtedly diminishes the democratic rights of the electorate in electing a person of their own choice as President, by excluding from Presidential candidature:
(1) Citizens of Guyana not resident in Guyana on Nomination Day.
(2) Citizens of Guyana resident in Guyana on Nomination Day but who have not been continuously resident in Guyana for 7 years prior to that date.
(3) Citizens of Guyana by registration.
(4) Citizens of Guyana who have served for two terms as President.
As such, the purported alteration by Act No 17 of 2001 purports to curtail the people’s electoral democratic choices and to offend the declaration in Article 1 that Guyana is a democratic State-in which the sovereignty resides in the people Article 9). This is precisely why, for the purpose of any alteration of Articles 1 and 9, the voice of two thirds of the elected members of the National Assembly is not the voice of the people.”
This restriction of the right to choose the individual who would be Head of State and head of Government by the Guyanese people could not be capriciously restrained because what it signals goes to the very nature of Guyanese republicanism, where sovereignty inheres in the people. Such a change, Chief Justice Chang ruled, should be ratified by the people themselves in a republic.
Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) Carl Singh, declared this unequivocally, “The people are entitled, in keeping with democratic principles to freely elect their representatives.” It was an inalienable right that could not be delegated away since it would change the nature of the sovereignty that the Constitution confirms as residing in the people. It was as if the owner of a clothing store delegated the running of his establish to a set of managers who were authorised to make day to day decisions. But a decision that would alter the very nature of the business – such as changing it to a fish store – should be ratified by the owner. The people of Guyana are the “sovereign” of Guyana – its “owners” and the Caribbean Court of Justice will confirm they must give consent via a referendum on changes to fundamental aspects of the peoples’ power of choice.
