Amend the Constitution again to make clear the two-term limit

Dear Editor,

The Court of Appeal decision to uphold the former Chief Justice Ian Chang’s ruling that the two-term presidential limit is unconstitutional, should not be seen as a chance for Mr Jagdeo to seek more than two terms as President of Guyana. Instead all Guyana, especially the politicians, should take the opportunity to re-word the Constitution, and erase any doubts about what was or is intended by the 2001 amendment. The Constitution already has restrictions on who can seek election as President. The completion of two terms is just another progressive step to which our Constitution is leading us.

The argument that the amendment should have been taken to a referendum, seems to ignore the safeguard requiring a high percentage of members of parliament to approve it, which is built into the Constitution.

And that safeguard was met when the amendment was agreed. Also, along the same lines, our current government should continue with the selection process for the Chairman of Gecom from a list submitted by the PPP, and agree to the inclusion of individuals covered by the fit and proper person clause.  To most ordinary folks, the wording here is clear, but if needed, let the re-wording be done too, but maintain the intent.  What about this    as a ‘Guyana-progressive’ inclusion in the promised constitutional amendments? After the Opposition Leader sends 2 or 3 lists of candidates to the President and the President cannot decide on anyone, the Leader of the Opposition then selects the Gecom chair from one of the names on the lists supplied?

By agreeing to work hand-in-hand to ensure that our laws deliver to us what is intended, our politicians will move us more towards a more socially cohesive society ‒ the place we are told that they all are taking us to.

Yours faithfully,

Faiyaz Alli