Port of Spain, Trinidad. In the case of the Attorney General of Guyana v Cedric Richardson, the
Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruled that an amendment, that barred Presidents of the Republic
of Guyana from serving more than two terms in office, was a valid amendment to the Constitution.
The amendment, which was made to the Constitution of Guyana in 2000, also added the further
qualifications that a candidate for President must be a Guyanese by birth or parentage, residing in
Guyana on the date of nomination for election, and continuously resident in the country for a period
of seven years before nomination day.
The Court, after examination of the historical background of the amendment to the Constitution,
noted that it was passed unanimously by the National Assembly during President Jagdeo’s term in
office. The CCJ felt that it was clear that the amendment did not emerge from the desire of any
political party to manipulate the requirements to run for the office of President. The Constitution
was amended after extensive national consultation and therefore represented a sincere attempt to
enhance democracy in Guyana.
Mr. Cedric Richardson had originally challenged the amendment on the basis that he should have
the right to choose whomsoever he wanted to be President. He also stated that the amendment
disqualified former President, Mr. Bharatt Jagdeo, who had previously served two terms as
President, from running for office in upcoming elections. Mr. Richardson argued that the
amendment was inconsistent with his rights under Articles 1 and 9 of the Constitution which
declared that Guyana was a “sovereign democratic state”. He said that in order for the National
Assembly to amend the Constitution, the amendment had to be supported by a majority vote in a
referendum. He said that no referendum was held before the amendment in 2000 and therefore the
amendment was unconstitutional.
The High Court, and a majority of the Court of Appeal, agreed with Mr. Richardson. They said
that an essential feature of a sovereign democratic state was the freedom enjoyed by its people to
choose whom they wish to represent them. The amendment was therefore unconstitutional because
it “diluted the opportunity of the people to elect a President of their choice.”
The Attorney General of Guyana appealed to the CCJ challenging the majority ruling in the Court
of Appeal. The main issue in the appeal was whether the additional qualifications set out in the
amendment diluted the rights of the electorate or undermined the sovereign democratic nature of
the state of Guyana as prescribed by Articles 1 and 9.
All seven judges of the CCJ heard the appeal. The majority decision was delivered by separate
judgments from the Rt. Hon. Sir Dennis Byron, the Court’s President, the Hon. Mr. Justice Adrian
Saunders and the Hon. Mr. Justice Jacob Wit. The Hon. Mr. Justice Winston Anderson offered a
dissenting judgment. The majority’s view was that Articles 1 and 9 did not confer on citizens an
unlimited right to choose the head of state. Democratic governance allowed for reasonable
qualifications for eligibility to be a member of the National Assembly and hence to be President.
This was supported by objective, international standards of what a democratic state entails. The
CCJ also stated that new qualifications can be introduced by valid constitutional amendments and
that the National Assembly had the power to amend the Constitution by a vote of at least twothirds
of all members of the Assembly, without holding a referendum.
The Court outlined guiding principles for assessing when new amendments to the Constitution did
not require the holding of a referendum. Ultimately, the test was whether any such new
amendments were “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society”. To determine this, any court
called upon to assess such a matter should “look to the history, substance and practical
consequences of the amendment, to the reasons advanced for it and to the interests it serves”.
The Hon. Mr. Justice Winston Anderson, in his dissent, agreed with the Court of Appeal of Guyana
that the amendment was unconstitutional because it resulted in the exclusion of probably thousands
of otherwise eligible Guyanese citizens from being elected as President, without seeking the
approval of the people by referendum. He considered that this was an unacceptable constraint on
the sovereignty of the people of Guyana to choose their President as provided for in Articles 1 and 9.
The full judgment of the Court and a judgment summary are available on the Court’s website at
www.ccj.org.
