LAST week, it was learnt that the Attorney General’s Chambers had been unsuccessful in locating Cedric Richardson at the address he submitted in his petition to the Constitutional Court, for an interpretation of the Guyana Constitution,  as to whether a person who served two consecutive terms as president could contest and hold office again. Former president Bharrat Jagdeo was cited in the petition as the example.

When the petitioner approached the court in December 2014, this act followed a similar 2009 focus by a group calling itself “Guyanese Coalition For Jagdeo Third Term.” This campaign was pushed by persons close to Mr Jagdeo, it spared no expense, and was sustained with much energy. There were billboards splashed across the country, seeking to sensitise and win the citizenry over, in as much as the advocates were conscious the Constitution prohibited such possibility.

The support given by Mr Jagdeo for Mr Donald Ramotar to be the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) presidential candidate for the 2011 General and Regional Elections (GRE), in as much as there were preferred higher-profile candidates, hinted that the former may have seen the latter as a caretaker president.  This was a label then President Ramotar had to defend repeatedly during his term.

The decision of the High Court (2015) and Appeal Court (2017) about the constitutionality of a third term has not been surprising for some. In spite of the courts’ decisions, when the Constitution was amended, it was the understanding of the populace, political parties, and members of the National Assembly that no person shall be president for more than two consecutive terms. When this Bill was passed and assented by then President Jagdeo, all were comforted that at least on this issue there was unanimous agreement.

When Richardson filed his petition and Mr Jagdeo was asked about any intent to return to politics and being thought of as an unseen hand behind the third term, he said he wanted no constitutional office. But within a few months he was on the political hustings and appeared on his party’s List of Representatives for the May 2015 GRE. When the PPP/C lost the Executive, he offered himself and took up the position of the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly.

The about turn of wanting constitutional office has since been accompanied by affirmative speeches as to what he would do when the PPP/C returns to the Executive. Such statements are made in an atmosphere where political confidence is being exuded and alongside public debates of the courts’ interpretation of the third term. These pretentions have led the society to believe that the courts’ decisions were influenced politically and more so in light of Mr Jagdeo’s manoeuvrings that he is single-mindedly pursuing a third term.

While some may argue that a person has a right to change his or her mind, at the same time it would be remembered that Mr Jagdeo led the Executive government that signed into law the cap on the two terms, committing every citizen to this.  The expression of interest, implicit or explicit, to a change of heart will not only be viewed as wanting power through the backdoor, but also demonstrates the people cannot trust governments and politicians.

This newspaper has reported that during the visits made by the AG’s Chambers to serve the Notice of Application and Affidavit in Support of the Application to appeal the court’s decision, it was advised that Richardson did not reside there and never did. What is not made known is whether the person who the Chambers spoke to at the residence is speaking the truth, or the petitioner has since moved to another location to avoid being served. Whichever it is proven to be, this would nonetheless give rise to more speculation that the whole third term is a continuation of the 2009 push and is being managed and funded by persons whose interest or fronting aligns with who is proposed to benefit from a favourable decision.

The inability to find the petitioner lends the impression that mischief is afoot. It suggests deliberate efforts are being made to ensure the document is not served, paving the way for a technicality to be found when appearing at the Caribbean Court of Justice, to have the matter struck out. Should this happen, it carries consequences for the case not to be fully adjudicated and by extension securing of a third term. The possibilities lay ominous and real.