-AG requests adjournment to February   

ATTORNEY General, Basil Williams, SC, has written outgoing Chancellor of the Judiciary, Carl Singh, requesting that he adjourn the hearing of an appeal against the decision of former Chief Justice Ian Chang that scrapped presidential term limits here.Media reports suggest that the hearing of the appeal will begin this Friday, but Williams, according to information reaching this newspaper, requested that the chancellor who is head of the Appeal Court adjourn the hearing until February.
The Guyana Chronicle was told that Williams advanced that Solicitor-General, Sita Ramlall, who had filed the Notice of Appeal on behalf of the Attorney General has retired, and as such, he and his team need time to prepare for and take over the case.

The Appeal Court this newspaper was told also has opened the hearing of the race-baiting charge against Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, which was filed privately by Chartered Accountant, Christopher Ram, following the 2015 elections.
Justice Navendra Singh had dismissed the charge of uttering racially divisive remarks against Jagdeo, saying in his ruling that there was insufficient evidence provided by Ram to support the charge. Attorney General Williams later appealed the case.

CONCERNS
Meanwhile, only recently this newspaper had reported that there are concerns over the impending retirement of Justice Singh, who is the country’s substantive Chief Justice and whether he will remain the holder of that office beyond January 30, 2017, which should be his last day of work.
Singh is expected to begin pre-retirement leave on January, 30, 2017. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior legal mind had warned that Justice Singh, who is also Chancellor (ag), should not be taking on new political cases during the time he should be on pre-retirement leave.
If the term-limit hearing continues despite Williams’s request, it means that Singh, like Chang, would have to come out of pre-retirement to conclude those cases. Chang back in February 19, 2016, in one of the most controversial acts came out of pre-retirement leave and ruled that Citizenship Minister Winston Felix and his colleague, Keith Scott, Minister within the Ministry of Social Protection, cannot sit as technocratic ministers in the National Assembly.
Government had challenged the ruling and both ministers continue to sit in Parliament.
Williams at the time had questioned the motive of Chang coming out of pre-retirement leave to make a decision on a political matter.

He said that by virtue of the President appointing someone to act then as Chief Justice, it was inconceivable that Chang would usurp that role and come out of pre-retirement leave to announce his ruling.
Meanwhile, Justice Singh will turn 65 years old on February 23, 2017 and according to the rules surrounding the tenure of Chief Justice, his substantive post, he is required to demit office at that age.
“It must be ensured that the Chancellor does not take on any new cases, especially political cases. It is expected that he would want to start cases and then say he can’t go on leave as he will have to conclude the cases,” said a prominent attorney.
Moreover, it has been alleged that Justice Singh has been paying himself in lieu of leave; last year, the Chief Justice paid himself in lieu of leave for six months.
“The leave must kick in… he has 21 days leave and he leaves on the 30th January, 2017,” the source stated emphatically, adding that Justice Singh “must go on pre-retirement leave. He must not be paid for his leave, so he could stay on the job as he has been doing,” the legal mind declared.
Questions surrounding the retirement of Justice Singh had surfaced following a letter to the editor of this newspaper by attorney Maxwell E Edwards. Edwards had contended that when Justice Singh demits office, the office of the Chief Justice, whether by compulsory retirement or vacating at the age of 65, or by virtue of pre-retirement leave on January 30, two vacancies will exist.
Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards is currently serving as the Chief Justice (ag). She was appointed by President David Granger in December 2015. The letter writer posited that there will be a vacancy in the Office of the Chief Justice and an extant vacancy in the Office of the Chancellor.
“None of these is, or can be matters of confidentiality, but are plainly matters of public interest and concern,” he stated.  The letter writer believes that there is an impending controversy on the appointment of a new Chief Justice and Chancellor, given that by virtue of the Constitution, the President is required to consult with the Leader of the Opposition.
According to the Constitution, the Chancellor demits office at age 68, however, that has no bearing on Justice Singh, as he is acting Chancellor and not substantive Chancellor – a distinction which ought to be made.
Justice Singh has been acting Chancellor since 2005, after Justice Desiree Bernard demitted office. She had served from 2001-2005.
Meanwhile, the Constitution states that the President, following consultations with the Leader of the Opposition, may permit the Chancellor or Chief Justice on attaining the age of 65 to continue in office until he has attained such later age as may have been agreed with the Chancellor or the Chief Justice, as the case may be. As argued by legal minds, Edwards posited that “no judge soon to vacate his office ought to commence hearing a new or fresh case, for in all probability it would be a part-heard case when he/she vacates office”.

THIRD TERM
Prior to the 2015 General and Regional Elections, Georgetown citizen Cedric Richardson had challenged the Amendments to Article 90 of the Constitution that were enacted in 2001 after the bipartisan Constitution reform process.
The amendment placed term limits on Presidents. When the case came up, Jagdeo had denied being behind the move. Chang later ruled that the presidential term-limit was unconstitutional without the approval of the people through a referendum.
He also ruled that persons who have become Guyanese citizens by virtue of registration can run for President. Article 90 of the Constitution states:  “A person elected as President after the year 2000 is eligible for re-election only once,” and clause (3), which states, “A person who acceded to the presidency after the year 2000 and served therein on a single occasion for not less than such period as may be determined by the National Assembly, is eligible for election as President only once.”
Stabroek News reported that in the Notice of Appeal, Ramlal contended that the Chief Justice erred and misdirected himself in law when he ruled that the National Assembly, which passed Act No 17 of 2001 purporting to alter Article 90 of the Constitution by way of a two-thirds majority vote of all members, was unconstitutional and of no effect, as it failed to comply with Article 164(2) (a).
Another ground for the appeal is the contention that Justice Chang erred and misdirected himself when he ruled that the purported alteration of Article 90 by Act No. 17 of 2001 in substance and effect “diminishes the democratic rights of the electorate in electing a person of their own choice as President by excluding from presidential candidates, citizens who have served for two terms as a President.”
Justice Chang had held that the purported alteration curtails the people’s electoral democratic choices and offends the declaration in Article 1 that Guyana is a democratic State in which sovereignty resides in the people (Article 9) and the alteration of Article 1 and Article 9 could not have been done by two-thirds majority of the elected members of the National Assembly, but by referendum.
Ramlal also contends that Justice Chang erred and misguided himself when he posited that the Proviso to Article 164 (2)(b) of the Constitution affected the purported amendment to Article 90 insofar as it seeks to “trench on and dilute” the pre-existing democratic right of the electorate to elect as president a person of their own choice and is invalid and without legal effect for reason of non-compliance with Article 162 (2) (a) and or repugnancy with Article 1 and Article 9, both of which require a referendum for the amendment for any alteration.
The fourth ground, according to Ramlal, is that the Chief Justice erred and misguided himself when he held that while the Constitution provides for representative democracy, such representative democracy cannot trench on popular sovereignty from which it derives and which is entrenched by the requirement of a referendum. The final ground of Ramlal’s appeal is that Justice Chang erred in law in not satisfying himself that the court had jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.