Cedric Richardson, the man who had filed the motion challenging the presidential term limit has reportedly disappeared thereby preventing Attorney General Chambers from serving him a copy of the Notice of Application and Affidavit in Support of Application for leave to appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in the said matter.
In a statement the AG chambers, Office Assistant Shaun Mearns said he visited Richardson’s known place of abode located at Lot 4 West Ruimveldt on March 17 but was told by a female that Richardson does not reside there. According to Mearns, the female also denied knowing of Richardson ever living at the address.

“I return to the said premises on the 20th day of March, 2017 between the hours of the 4/4.30 and no one answered. On the 21st day of March, 2017 I returned to the said address between the hours of 4.30 and 5.00pm and again no one answered,” said the Office Assistant who then reported his findings to the Chgambers.
Richardson, just before the May 2015 General and Regional Elections sought to challenge the amendments made to Article 90 of the Constitution that were enacted in 2000 following a bipartisan Constitutional Reform Process, Justice Chang ruled, among other things, that the presidential term limit was unconstitutional without the approval of the people through a referendum.

Richardson, just before the May 2015 General and Regional Elections sought to challenge the amendments made to Article 90 of the Constitution that were enacted in 2000 following a bipartisan Constitutional Reform Process. Justice Chang ruled, among other things, that the presidential term limit was unconstitutional without the approval of the people through a referendum.
Richardson had also argued that the term limit infringes on Articles 1 and 9 of the Constitution wherein Article 1 states that “Guyana is an indivisible, secular, democratic, sovereign state in the course of transition from capitalism to socialism and shall be known as the Co-operative Republic of Guyana” and Article 9, states that “Sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives and the democratic organs established by or under this Constitution.”
Former Chief Justice Ian Chang had in July 2015 ruled in favour of Richardson which in effect prompted the Attorney General and Speaker of the National Assembly, the named parties, to appeal against the ruling. Justice Chang had said Article No.17 of 2001 is without legal effect because it does not comply with other articles of the constitution dealing with repugnancy, democratic society and sovereignty belonging to the people which require a referendum for any alteration.
He had reasoned that Article 1 and 9 underpin the republican commitment to the fundamental concept of popular sovereignty or imperium populi thereby safeguarding against elective despotism by the elected representatives of the people.
“Thus, while the constitution provides for representative democracy, such representative democracy cannot entrench on popular sovereignty from which it derives and which is entrenched by the requirement of the referendum,” Chang had said.
The former Chief Justice had determined that the two-term limit of Presidents indeed dilutes the rights of citizens to elect the person they wish to govern their country regardless of the number of times they wish that person to be Head of State. In his affidavit, Plaintiff Cedric Richardson had argued that the purported alteration of the Constitution by Act 17 of 2001 would curtail or delimit the electorate’s choice of Presidential candidate by rendering ineligible for the candidature any person who has been re-elected once as President e.g. Former President Bharrat Jagdeo.
Meanwhile, in February, the Court of Appeal by a two-one majority upheld the High Court ruling that the presidential term limit is unconstitutional and void. Now retired Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) Carl Singh, and Justice BS Roy upheld Chang’s ruling, while Chief Justice (ag) Yonette Cummings-Edwards disagreed.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Basil Williams, the first-named appellant and former Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, the second-named appellant, have both indicated that they will file an appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) within 30 days of the conclusion of the Court of Appeal decision. They are confident that their arguments will stand strong at the CCJ. While, attorney for the Respondent, Shawn Allicock, believes that the issue is one of national importance and must be resolved for the benefit of all. He said he is satisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal.