I hope he does not run for another Term, it is time for another PPP member to save Guyana from the disastrous PNC and the Namakramerm, Crabdaag FILTH

Nehru posted:

I hope he does not run for another Term, it is time for another PPP member to save Guyana from the disastrous PNC and the Namakramerm, Crabdaag FILTH

Who do you have in mind? Anil, Rohee, etc? All of them have one foot in the grave already.

I think Anil would be a good President.

Bibi Haniffa posted:

I think Anil would be a good President.

I would prefer Ramson Jr, who is young and vibrant. 

Yes.  I'm in agreement! 

Court of Appeal upholds third term ruling

February 22, 2017 Breaking News

The ruling in the appeal of the presidential third term challenge was given today by the Court of Appeal and, in a two to one majority, the Court ruled that a person who served two terms as president can run again for a third term.

Handing down the decision were Chancellor of the Judiciary, Carl Singh; Chief Justice, Yonnette Cummings-Edwards and Justice B.S. Roy.  Cummings-Edward voted no.

Attorney General, Basil Williams, has said that State will appeal the decision to the Caribbean Court of Justice within 30 days.

The former Chief Justice, Ian Chang, in 2015, ruled that the restriction of a two-term limit is unconstitutional. On August 7, 2015, the then Solicitor General Sita Ramlall and Attorney Roysdale Forde, filed the appeal on five grounds, including that fact that the Chief Justice blundered in law.

Chang’s ruling was based a constitutional challenge that was filed by Georgetown resident, Cedric Richardson, in February, 2015. His attorneys are Emily Dodson and Shawn Allicock. The applicant argued that Act 17 of 2001, which was passed by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly, unconstitutionally curtails and restricts his sovereign and democratic rights and freedom as a qualified elector to elect former President Bharrat Jagdeo as the Executive President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.

Chang ruled that notwithstanding the provisions of Article 164, Act No 17 of 2001 in so far as it ‘dilutes’ the democratic rights of the electorate to elect a president of its own choice, needed a referendum and therefore violates article 164. The Chief Justice argues that the constitution cannot be subject to amendment by addition and Act 17 of 2001 adds new provisions to Article 90 relating to the qualifications for president. The other main reason given by the Chief Justice is that a two-thirds majority cannot alter a provision of the constitution in diminution of its ‘normative’ characteristics as providing that Guyana is an indivisible, secular, democratic and sovereign state. He identified the right of a citizen to elect a president as such a provision and held that the amendment affected such a right.

The term limit was proposed by the Constitutional Reform Commission in 2000 and subsequently enacted by Act No. 17 of 2001.  Act No. 17 of 2001 amended Article 90 of the constitution to provide for term limitation and other qualifications for the president, pursuant to the recommendations of the Constitution Reform Commission.

Amendments can be made to the constitution under Article 164 by a two-thirds majority for some articles and a two-thirds majority together with a referendum for others. Act No. 17 of 2001 had received a two-thirds majority in 2001.

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Yes.  I'm in agreement! 

I hope he returns to Guyana after his study in England. I believe that's the plan for him. 

Yes.  He is returning as soon as he graduates with his Masters.  Anil just turned 44 last week.  He is still a young man too.  I pick Anil for 2020 and Ramson Jr for the next go around.

I should be President of Guyana!!!

Nehru posted:

I should be President of Guyana!!!

You wouldn't be able with Guyana baracath. Stan easy in America and pujee Trump.

Guyana gone fuh channa,this ruling opens a can of worms.

Burnham Constitution with the amendments need to be thrown in the garbage bin.

Django posted:

Guyana gone fuh channa,this ruling opens a can of worms.

Granger is already setting himself up to serve longer than Burnham. Granger forget about constitutional reform that required 2/3 majority to change the rules. Plus, abee coolie ah dead everyday that will give the PNC an advantage to win again. Is that's the worm you talking about?

This is not good for Guyana...a lack of term limits created Burnham

Bibi Haniffa posted:

I think Anil would be a good President.

I think Frank Anthony will be an excellent president. Nandlall, though very smart, has accumulated some baggage -the infamous phone call to reporter from Kaiteur News.

Prince posted:

Django posted:

Guyana gone fuh channa,this ruling opens a can of worms.

Granger is already setting himself up to serve longer than Burnham. Granger forget about constitutional reform that required 2/3 majority to change the rules. Plus, abee coolie ah dead everyday that will give the PNC an advantage to win again. Is that's the worm you talking about?

Dictatorship ugly head is raising again.

In my humble opinion, AG Basil Williams is just going through the motion to appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice. Whether or not the CCJ knocks down that appeal does not make a difference. Jagdeo can run or not run for president again, but the PPP is not getting back into government in 2020. Objective and subjective conditions are against the PPP.

OBJECTIVE CONDITIONS: The 2012 Census shows that Indians make up only 39.8 percent of the population. Indians are the PPP support base. Amerindians are more likely to vote for the incumbent APNU in 2020. 

SUBJECTIVE CONDITIONS: Granger knowingly and deliberately rejected Jagdeo's list of nominees for a new GECOM Chairman. If Jagdeo submits a second list, Granger will throw it out too. It is not rocket science to understand that Granger will pick his own GECOM Chairman. It is not rocket science to understand that there is a reason and purpose for the placement of military and ex-military personnel in key positions everywhere. It is not difficult to figure out why Granger has converted his private home to a Burnham research centre.

Granger, a military strategist and tactician, is employing his training in the political arena for one main objective: to return APNU to power. The upcoming SARA Act is another weapon in his armory. And, as a last resort, if push comes to shove, the 2020 election results will be engineered in APNU's favour with a handpicked GECOM Head.

Gill,your analysis is on target.

The two learned Judges have thwarted Democracy.

Jaggy has no option but to run in order to give the country a chance to get these pack or rats out of power. You folks should remember how all the pnc/afc thiefmen were having heart palpitations in 2010 when they thought that Jaggy would run.  Blacks used to call him the father of the nation and said that he gave them milk while pnc gave black tea. That is why the afc/pnc crooks are afraid of him.  

Django posted:

Gill,your analysis is on target.

The two learned Judges have thwarted Democracy.

How have they thwarted democracy?  Who died and make the 53 clowns in parliament God?  There should have been a referendum for the PEOPLE to decide.  That's what the ruling is about.

But don't fear Jagdeo will not win in 2020.  He is not Jagan.  He and the current PPP is not liked by the ABC countries.

Gilbakka posted:

In my humble opinion, AG Basil Williams is just going through the motion to appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice. Whether or not the CCJ knocks down that appeal does not make a difference. Jagdeo can run or not run for president again, but the PPP is not getting back into government in 2020. Objective and subjective conditions are against the PPP.

OBJECTIVE CONDITIONS: The 2012 Census shows that Indians make up only 39.8 percent of the population. Indians are the PPP support base. Amerindians are more likely to vote for the incumbent APNU in 2020. 

SUBJECTIVE CONDITIONS: Granger knowingly and deliberately rejected Jagdeo's list of nominees for a new GECOM Chairman. If Jagdeo submits a second list, Granger will throw it out too. It is not rocket science to understand that Granger will pick his own GECOM Chairman. It is not rocket science to understand that there is a reason and purpose for the placement of military and ex-military personnel in key positions everywhere. It is not difficult to figure out why Granger has converted his private home to a Burnham research centre.

Granger, a military strategist and tactician, is employing his training in the political arena for one main objective: to return APNU to power. The upcoming SARA Act is another weapon in his armory. And, as a last resort, if push comes to shove, the 2020 election results will be engineered in APNU's favour with a handpicked GECOM Head.

There has to be a new party that will have the backing of the ABC countries else they might turn their backs and allowed rigged elections (if necessary) in 2020.

Drugb posted:

Jaggy has no option but to run in order to give the country a chance to get these pack or rats out of power. You folks should remember how all the pnc/afc thiefmen were having heart palpitations in 2010 when they thought that Jaggy would run.  Blacks used to call him the father of the nation and said that he gave them milk while pnc gave black tea. That is why the afc/pnc crooks are afraid of him.  

I have to agree.

Jagdeo will surprise many and win a third term if the elections are free and fair. He has  flaws but has matured and is very popular. The AFC gang are just like raw sewage and need to be sent packing.

The AFC/PNC are definitely afraid of him. They had belly wuk when there were rumours of Jagdeo running again.

I support Jagdeo in 2020 and predict a PPP victory if the elections are free and fair. This is great news for Guyana. 

Jagdeo will win back enough black votes since they now realize what the PNC is doing to them by squeezing them to death with heavy taxation, little or no pay increases and parking fees. 

This is great news. Go Jaggy Go !!!! Jaggy for 2020 !!!!

PPP PPP PPP PPP.

Django posted:

Prince posted:

Django posted:

Guyana gone fuh channa,this ruling opens a can of worms.

Granger is already setting himself up to serve longer than Burnham. Granger forget about constitutional reform that required 2/3 majority to change the rules. Plus, abee coolie ah dead everyday that will give the PNC an advantage to win again. Is that's the worm you talking about?

Dictatorship ugly head is raising again.

You are talking nonsense again. The constitution does not allow for more than two consecutive terms, they have to step down after the two terms.

It does not prevent anyone from running again in the future.

This ruling clears up all confusion and lies peddled by AFC/PNC clowns. The courts slapped them in the face.

Gilbakka posted:

In my humble opinion, AG Basil Williams is just going through the motion to appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice. Whether or not the CCJ knocks down that appeal does not make a difference. Jagdeo can run or not run for president again, but the PPP is not getting back into government in 2020. Objective and subjective conditions are against the PPP.

OBJECTIVE CONDITIONS: The 2012 Census shows that Indians make up only 39.8 percent of the population. Indians are the PPP support base. Amerindians are more likely to vote for the incumbent APNU in 2020. 

SUBJECTIVE CONDITIONS: Granger knowingly and deliberately rejected Jagdeo's list of nominees for a new GECOM Chairman. If Jagdeo submits a second list, Granger will throw it out too. It is not rocket science to understand that Granger will pick his own GECOM Chairman. It is not rocket science to understand that there is a reason and purpose for the placement of military and ex-military personnel in key positions everywhere. It is not difficult to figure out why Granger has converted his private home to a Burnham research centre.

Granger, a military strategist and tactician, is employing his training in the political arena for one main objective: to return APNU to power. The upcoming SARA Act is another weapon in his armory. And, as a last resort, if push comes to shove, the 2020 election results will be engineered in APNU's favour with a handpicked GECOM Head.

Gilly, too bad all those who rallied for and gave support to the current government before the elections lacked the foresight back then to understand that they were turning the country over to the old PNC days with old PNC tactics.

VVP posted:

Django posted:

Gill,your analysis is on target.

The two learned Judges have thwarted Democracy.

How have they thwarted democracy?  Who died and make the 53 clowns in parliament God?  There should have been a referendum for the PEOPLE to decide.  That's what the ruling is about.

I'll be the devil's advocate and urge Granger to call Cedric Richardson/PPP/Carl Singh's bluff and hold such a referendum in late 2019. That will give Granger a valid excuse to postpone the 2020 election. Remember history? After the rigged 1973 election, Burnham was supposed to call election in 1978. Instead, he held a referendum on a new constitution and postponed election to 1980, giving him 2 years extra for that term.

Of course, the PPP is free to hold an internal referendum among its general membership to decide whether Jagdeo or another person should be presidential candidate. Right now, only a 15-member Exco decides that.

Prashad believes that the future of the Guyanese East Indian people lies in the peaceful creation of an independent sovereign country. I am not into ruling Africans who have fought for centuries to rule themselves. Nevertheless I can see Anil, Frank Anthony (providing he change that false name), Irfan and young Ramson are competent young leaders.

Third term case for CCJ

-after Court of Appeal upholds Justice Chang’s ruling in split decision.

February 23, 2017 Source

The Guyana Court of Appeal by a majority decision yesterday upheld the ruling made in 2015 by former Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang that the two-term presidential limit is unconstitutional and the matter will now be taken to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

Acting Chancellor Carl Singh, who retires today, was the first to dismiss the appeals filed by Attorney General Basil Williams SC and Attorney Roysdale Forde on behalf of the Attorney General and former Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman. Justice B S Roy later agreed with him, while Acting Chief Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards dissented.

The original court action was brought by Cedrick Richardson, a private citizen, months before the 2015 elections. He challenged the restriction created by amendments to Article 90 of the Constitution that were enacted in 2001 after the bipartisan Constitution reform process.

On July 9, 2015, Justice Chang ruled that the presidential term-limit was unconstitutional without the approval of the people through a referendum. The amendments to Article 9 of the Constitution had seen the insertion of two clauses to allow for re-election only once.

Justice Chang’s ruling had paved the way for two-term president Bharrat Jagdeo to seek re-election. Jagdeo had repeatedly distanced himself from the case and had publicly said that he had no intention of running for office again. However, Jagdeo is now the Opposition Leader and was recently elected as General Secretary of the PPP/C. It is that party’s General Secretary who has traditionally been its presidential nominee.

Weeks after the decision was handed down, appeals were filed.  The appeal was heard for the first time last month and the decision made yesterday arose out of written submissions; there were no oral submissions.

Williams, following the conclusion of the case, noted that the court was divided in its decision. “It wasn’t unanimous and I believe that we have good grounds to go to the CCJ,” he said, adding that it is important that matters like these are resolved. He stressed that when the matter was first filed in the High Court he was not the Attorney General. “I wasn’t the Attorney General in the beginning. Mr [Anil] Nandlall [the then AG] as you heard the court say didn’t raise certain points when he was supposed to, but the decision would mean that anybody can come to court and there are really no checks and balances. So the CCJ needs to address these issues,” he said.

Forde said the court had delivered a split decision, two judges to one, and he and his client remain confident in the arguments submitted and will most likely file an appeal to the CCJ.

Asked when, he responded that it will be done within the 30-day time frame permitted.

Richardson’s lawyer, Shawn Allicock, in an invited comment, expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision. He said the matter was really about the democratic rights of citizens of Guyana. He made mention of a petition filed where the democratic right to be belaboured with a voter’s ID card in order to vote was challenged.

Asked about his level of confidence in the CCJ also upholding Justice Chang’s decision, Allicock responded, “We are confident… We wouldn’t be here [Court of Appeal] if we didn’t think that it was something that was winnable.”

He told reporters that the people of Guyana are deserving of the courts hearing these matters and deliberating on them. Noting that this matter affects all citizens, he said it was not a case where “Shawn Allicock or some citizen or one single citizen decides. It is in everybody’s interest.”

Allicock questioned what would happen if the Parliament decided that a person must be a former parliamentarian in order to be a presidential candidate. “That would mean those 65 people in Parliament have a 1 in 65 chance of becoming the next president. So tinkering with these criteria has issues,” he stressed.

The attorney said that whatever the final decision was he will accept it and all would know whether a person can serve in office for two terms or not.

Decision rests with the people

When the matter was called, Justice Singh had announced that he would speak first followed by Justice Cummings-Edwards and then Justice Roy.

Reading his ruling, which lasted for almost 90 minutes, Justice Singh expressed the view that the decision of the term limits rests with the people via a referendum and not the National Assembly.

He pointed out that Guyana can be described as a sovereign, democratic state and that democracy is a guarantee upon which the function of government in Guyana can be assessed. Noting that the facts of cases mentioned by Forde depart from the present situation, he expressed belief that in deciding this appeal the court should focus on the concepts of sovereignty and democracy as these words are used in Article 1 and 9 of the Constitution. He said that these concepts should be interpreted “with a clear understanding of the role of the citizens of Guyana in the exercise of their democratic entitlement and what is conferred upon them by virtue of the sovereignty that is vested in them.”

Justice Singh stressed that people should choose whom they “please to govern them” and noted that this is essential to all other rights.

Act No 17 of 2000 “waters down” the opportunity of the people of Guyana to elect the president of their choice though this is present in Article 1 and 9, he said.

Article 90 of the Constitution states at Clause 2(a) that a person elected as president after the year 2000 “is eligible for re-election only once” and at Clause (3) that 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.”

Justice Singh said changes to the features of these articles could only be done via referendum; that is “by the people themselves”. He said that when the Act No 17 of 2000 “altered” the provisions of Article 90 resulting in an increase in the number and categories of disqualified persons who the political parties might have considered as their candidate, that “effectively suppressed the right of the people to freely choose those persons whom they feel should represent them”. He said that this right of the people to choose is now controlled by the National Assembly.

Justice Singh did not accept Williams’s call for the proceedings to be dismissed because of Richardson’s reference to Article 17 of 2001 which does not exist. (Article 17 of 2000 is what should have been stated.) While lauding Williams for bringing to the court’s attention what Williams called a “fatal flaw,” Justice Singh said that it was nothing more than an error. “…I would dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the High Court,” he stressed.

However Justice Cummings-Edwards disagreed. While speaking for approximately one hour, she expressed the view that Act No 17 of 2000 “did not require approval by referendum.” As such, she said, she upheld the validity of that Act. She said that the amendment to Article 90 was not unconstitutional as Justice Chang had pointed out. “The amendment was validly done,” she said, adding that Article 90 did not either directly or indirectly alter, dilute, affect or amend Article 1 and Article 9.

Her position is that the Act was validly passed by way of a two-thirds majority and it did not affect Articles 1 or 9 and did not require a referendum. “It is not unconstitutional. It did not diminish the democratic right of the electorate,” she expounded.

Moreover, she posited that it was Parliament that set the presidential term limit and later explained that it was the electorate who gave the National Assembly the power to amend the Constitution.

Justice Roy opted not to read a ruling. He indicated that he agreed with the position advanced by Justice Singh.

Richardson’s challenge

Richardson’s constitutional motion challenged the restriction created by amendments to Article 90 that were enacted in 2001 after the bipartisan Constitution reform process.

Richardson claimed that Act No 17 of 2001, which was passed by a two-third majority of all elected members of the National Assembly to enable the term-limits, “unconstitutionally curtails and restricts” his sovereign and democratic rights and freedom as a qualified elector “to elect the person of former president Bharrat Jagdeo” as executive president.

According to Justice Chang’s ruling, by virtue of the fact that the alterations diluted and further restricted democratic sovereignty, the holding of a referendum was required. He agreed that the changes “curtail people’s democratic choices” and offend declarations in Articles 1 and 9 that Guyana is a “democratic state” in which “sovereignty resides in the people.”

Williams, in his written submissions on appeal, which were prepared by attorney Esther Sam, contended that it was the political parties and not the electorate that choose the presidential candidate and, therefore,  Richardson had no democratic right to choose who the presidential candidate will be.

Williams further contended that the alteration to Article 90 of the Constitution had not altered Articles 1 and 9 of the Constitution as alleged and therefore did not require a referendum vote.

Williams also pointed out that at all times Richardson based his application on Act No 17 of 2001, but there was no such act in place and he argued that this was a “fatal flaw in the originating summons and should have resulted in its dismissal at first instance.”

He also argued that it was clear that Article 164(2) (b) permits alterations to Article 90 once they are done in line with the prescribed procedure. This procedure, it was pointed out, requires that it be passed in the National Assembly with a two-thirds majority and referred to the electorate for a referendum vote. “However, the proviso further provides that the use of the referendum vote is not required if the alteration does not affect Articles referred to in Article 164(2) (a),” he argued.

Williams contended that the electorate had no democratic right to choose who will become the presidential candidate; instead, their right is to vote for the party list of their choice.

He further added that the amendments did not alter or change any of the provisions in Article (164) (2) (a) as alleged or at all and therefore “there is no requirement for the bill to be taken to referendum. Act No 17 of 2000 is therefore not ultra vires the Constitution since the alteration was done in compliance with Article 164(2) (b) of the Constitution.”

Addressing whether Richardson had any standing to bring the application, Williams said that while it was based on the ground that his right to choose the presidential candidate of his choice was being affected by the constitutional alteration to Article 90, the law states clearly that an electorate does not have the right to choose or vote for a presidential candidate.

Williams also considered whether an originating summons was the appropriate process for instituting the proceedings before the court. He argued that Richardson had not established the legal requirements to bring the application by way of originating summons and in fact “ought to have approached the High Court for constitutional relief by way of writ of summons since it is not an allegation of a breach of a fundamental right.”

Forde, in a submission on behalf of Trotman, asked that the appeal be allowed as the amendments to Article 90 did not “expressly, or by implication or infection alter the provisions of Articles 1 and 9 of the Constitution.”

In his written submissions, dated January 20, he highlighted dozens of issues arising from Justice Chang’s judgement.

He noted that the appeal before the court raised issues of construction of the Constitution for the court’s determination; that is, whether in substance and effect the amendments to Article 90 altered the provisions in Articles 1 and 9 other than in accordance with  Article 164 (2) (a).

Like Williams, Forde contended that the amendments did not alter by implication or affect Articles 1 and 9.

It was also argued that the amendments merely added disqualifications in respect of an individual citizen’s competence to be elected as president. “The constitutional and statutory context in which the citizen and/or the respondent exercises his right to elect a person of his own choosing as president was not considered by the Chief Justice at all in his judgment,” the submission stated.

It added that the right of Richardson as a citizen to choose or elect a presidential candidate in every elections prior to Act No 17 is the same and exact right which existed after the enactment of that Act.

According to the submission, the addition of the term limit in Article 90 did not result in the creation of a “new thing or destroy the identity of the thing affected, that is another type of state, nor was it a change in or modification or variation in the state of Guyana or the sovereignty of the people.”

yuji22 posted:

Django posted:

 

Dictatorship ugly head is raising again.

You are talking nonsense again. The constitution does not allow for more than two consecutive terms, they have to step down after the two terms.

It does not prevent anyone from running again in the future.

This ruling clears up all confusion and lies peddled by AFC/PNC clowns. The courts slapped them in the face.

Yugi,read the article above,

this amendment was thrown out by the two judges.

Article 90 of the Constitution states at Clause 2(a) that a person elected as president after the year 2000 “is eligible for re-election only once” and at Clause (3) that 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.”

VVP posted:

Django posted:

Gill,your analysis is on target.

The two learned Judges have thwarted Democracy.

How have they thwarted democracy?  Who died and make the 53 clowns in parliament God?  There should have been a referendum for the PEOPLE to decide.  That's what the ruling is about.

But don't fear Jagdeo will not win in 2020.  He is not Jagan.  He and the current PPP is not liked by the ABC countries.

Papa Cheddi pushed for Presidential term limits,the RAT and crew used the court to determine the constitutionality of the amendment.

This ruling give the PNC a trump card they gained and the PPP lost.Wait and see the PNC will make the PPP a minority party for life.

Bhai VVP,i am afraid for the Indo Guyanese rights,hopefully that will not be trampled upon in the future,i have a lot of family there migration isn't easy for them.

Time for an effective third party that will have a wide cross section of the Guyanese population,the two pea of the same pod need to be booted.

Django posted:

Papa Cheddi pushed for Presidential term limits,the RAT and crew used the court to determine the constitutionality of the amendment.

This ruling give the PNC a trump card they gained and the PPP lost.Wait and see the PNC will make the PPP a minority party for life.

Bhai VVP,i am afraid for the Indo Guyanese rights,hopefully that will not be trampled upon in the future,i have a lot of family there migration isn't easy for them.

Time for an effective third party that will have a wide cross section of the Guyanese population,the two pea of the same pod need to be booted.

After all you are a pnc supporter and therefore should be happy that Granger can for president for life like the kakaba.  Only now you concerned about your indo family? You should have considered this when the rest of us were warning you about the evil pnc but you chose to throw your support behind them. 

Django posted:

VVP posted:

Django posted:

Gill,your analysis is on target.

The two learned Judges have thwarted Democracy.

How have they thwarted democracy?  Who died and make the 53 clowns in parliament God?  There should have been a referendum for the PEOPLE to decide.  That's what the ruling is about.

But don't fear Jagdeo will not win in 2020.  He is not Jagan.  He and the current PPP is not liked by the ABC countries.

Papa Cheddi pushed for Presidential term limits,the RAT and crew used the court to determine the constitutionality of the amendment.

This ruling give the PNC a trump card they gained and the PPP lost.Wait and see the PNC will make the PPP a minority party for life.

Bhai VVP,i am afraid for the Indo Guyanese rights,hopefully that will not be trampled upon in the future,i have a lot of family there migration isn't easy for them.

Time for an effective third party that will have a wide cross section of the Guyanese population,the two pea of the same pod need to be booted.

There will never be another fair election in Guyana. Democracy is dead. Thanks to the riggers in the PNC. Bullies..wrang and strang.

Django posted:

VVP posted:

Django posted:

Gill,your analysis is on target.

The two learned Judges have thwarted Democracy.

How have they thwarted democracy?  Who died and make the 53 clowns in parliament God?  There should have been a referendum for the PEOPLE to decide.  That's what the ruling is about.

But don't fear Jagdeo will not win in 2020.  He is not Jagan.  He and the current PPP is not liked by the ABC countries.

Papa Cheddi pushed for Presidential term limits,the RAT and crew used the court to determine the constitutionality of the amendment.

This ruling give the PNC a trump card they gained and the PPP lost.Wait and see the PNC will make the PPP a minority party for life.

Bhai VVP,i am afraid for the Indo Guyanese rights,hopefully that will not be trampled upon in the future,i have a lot of family there migration isn't easy for them.

Time for an effective third party that will have a wide cross section of the Guyanese population,the two pea of the same pod need to be booted.

The effective third party is the AFC.  Are you not seeing the effects of their Valentine's Day love letter - The Cummingsburg Accord?  Wake up and smell the pepperpot!!

Zed posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

I think Anil would be a good President.

I think Frank Anthony will be an excellent president. Nandlall, though very smart, has accumulated some baggage -the infamous phone call to reporter from Kaiteur News.

Frank is a good guy.  He needs lil fight in him though - like Anil and BJ.  He is very laid back.  Dem PNC boys will eat him up alive.

This ruling goes beyond the third term ability to run. It also voids the same article that treated overseas based Guyanese like second class citizens. Good riddance to it and those in parliament who think they are God to decide what should be the people's will through a referendum. Kudos to Justices Chang, Singh and Roy!! Let's see what the CCJ does now.

Here is the full article that was voided:

Article 90 of the Constitution provides for the election to the office of the President as follows:

1. A person shall be qualified for election as President and shall not be so qualified unless he is (a) is a citizen of Guyana by birth or parentage as defined in Articles 43 and 44 of the Constitution; (b) is residing in Guyana on the date of nomination for election and was continuously residing therein for a period of seven years immediately before the date; and (c) is otherwise qualified to be a member of the National Assembly.
2. A   person elected as President after the year 2000 is eligible for re-election only once.
3. 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.
4. In determining continuity of residence absence form Guyana to:
5. 1. seek medical help;
   2. study at a university or an intuition of higher learning for not more than four years; 
   3. work for the Government, shall be disregarded.

When East Indians finally get their own sovereign independent country which will eventually happen in the future. Term limits for an elected leader must be essential to ensuring democracy and freedom in the political system. Two terms is enough.