THE legal challenge relating to the constitutionally enshrined presidential two-term limit was heard in the High Court yesterday before Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang. The matter has been adjourned to May 4th, at which time arguments will commence.Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr Raphael Trotman, and Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr Anil Nandlall, have been named as respondents in the matter.

In an invited comment yesterday, Nandlall disclosed that he filed an affidavit in answer to the challenge, and Trotman’s lawyer is expected to soon file on his behalf.

“Mr Trotman’s lawyer, Roysdale Forde, asked for additional time to file an affidavit in response,” the AG said.

The legal challenge was initially instituted in early February and subsequently withdrawn. It was then replaced with a new Constitutional Motion in the name of Cedric Richardson, a 56-year-old resident of West Ruimveldt, Georgetown.
He is being represented by Attorney-at-Law Emily Dodson, a People’s National Congress (PNC) sympathiser. Attorneys-at-Law Shaun Allicock and Oneidge Waldron Allicock have also signed onto the writ.

The Attorney General has said that after the defendants’ affidavits in answer are filed, Richardson’s lawyers have three weeks to respond. “Given the timelines for the filing of the various documents, the court date has been set for May 4, at which time arguments will commence,” the Attorney General said.

With regard to the subject of the legal challenge, the Constitutional provision, Article 90 (2) states: “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 Bharrat 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,” Richardson has said.

His view is that 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, the provision of the constitution which imposes a term limit on the presidency is unconstitutional; and the procedure and process by which that provision was placed in the constitution is unlawful. (Vanessa Narine)