THE ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP), yesterday, weighed in on the legal challenge, relating to the constitutionally enshrined presidential two-term limit, with questions on its timing.“What is of interest is the timing at which this challenge is being raised and by whom. Guyana is on the cusp of National and Regional Elections. Many challenges lay ahead, the most important being to ensure that the Elections are free and fair. Clearly, this new development is an attempt to throw a spanner in the works,” the ruling party said in a statement.
According to the PPP, the sponsors of the legal challenge appear to have a “hidden agenda” in the real sense of the term, other than invoking or blocking the boogie of a “third term” for former President, Dr Bharrat Jagdeo.
“The interest of those behind the challenge lies in the darkest and deepest crevices of a democracy comparable to the galleries of Hades,” the PPP asserted.
JAGDEO NOT INTERESTED
The PPP alluded to the fact that Jagdeo, a member of the Party’s Executive and Central committees – the party’s leadership – has repeatedly affirmed his respect for the Constitution and has made clear that he has no interest whatsoever in any so called “third term” Presidency.
The party said, “Since 2011, Mr. Jagdeo made clear his disinterest in this matter within the Party and beyond. The Party wishes to state that while Mr. Jagdeo remains a highly popular figure within and beyond the membership and supporters of the PPP, this popularity is in no way intended to be translated into a ‘third term’ candidature.
According to the PPP, it has “become obvious that Mr. Jagdeo’s assertions fell on deaf ears and that his expression of disinterest in returning to the Presidency notwithstanding, the modern-day Quislings working in close collaboration with the local satraps continue to generate and peddle this absolute nonsense, elevating it to useless legalistic twaddle.”
The ruling party was emphatic that while PPP members and supporters hold the former President in high esteem and would have liked to see his return to the Presidency, they are also very much aware that there are “wolves in sheep’s clothing in our society who seek to sow discord” and to engage in “deceitful and artful fandangle aimed at misleading and confusing” party supporters.
“While the other political parties are still dithering to name their Presidential Candidate, the PPP has already done so,” the Party added, making clear its support for incumbent President Donald Ramotar.
NEW SUBTERFUGE
The PPP has termed the challenged the newest “subterfuge” that it has been confronted with.
“The PPP has confronted many subterfuges in and out of elections season. We fought off and overcame all of them. This new subterfuge will be fought off too and consigned to the dustbin of history,” the party concluded.
Meanwhile, the legal challenge, initially filed on Monday, was withdrawn and replaced on Tuesday with a new Constitutional Motion.
The challenge was filed in the name of Cedric Richardson, a 56-year-old West Ruimveldt, Georgetown, resident, by Attorney-at-Law, Emily Dodson, a People’s National Congress (PNC) sympathiser. Dodson also represented former treason accused, Mark Benschop, during his incarceration.
Attorneys-at-Law, Shaun Allicock and Oneidge Waldron Allicock, also signed onto the writ.
The contentious Constitutional provision, Article 90 (2) states that: “A person elected as President after 2000 is eligible for re-election only once.”
Richardson contends that the Constitutional provision “curtails” or “delimits” the electorate’s choice of a presidential candidate, such as Dr Jagdeo, by imposing a term limit.
“I believe that the illegal effect and consequence of the purported alteration is not only to curtail and restrict the democratic rights of the electorate in choosing a person as President, but to purport to amend the Articles 1 and 9 of the 1980 Constitution, which allowed the electorate to elect as president a person who had been re-elected,” he said.
According to him, such a change to the Constitution, which impacted on the freedoms of the electorate, should have been done via a referendum.
In other words, Richardson contends that the provision of the constitution, which imposes a term limit on the presidency, is unconstitutional; and that the procedure and process by which that provision was placed in the constitution is unlawful.
Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, and Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, have been named as the respondents in the matter.
No date has been set as yet for a hearing of the matter in the High Court.

(By Vanessa Narine)