Local Gov’t elections case ...PPP/C unclear before which court matters will be heard

Local Gov’t elections case …PPP/C unclear before which court matters will be heard

Apr 24, 2016 News

Supreme Court Judge Diana Insanally on Wednesday granted leave to the Attorney General to file and serve

Attorney at Law
Anil Nandlall

Affidavits in answer within seven days to the writ filed by the People Progressive Party PPP/C.
The PPPC is challenging decisions of the Government’s following the recently held Local Government Elections.
But there appears that there is some uncertainty surrounding which Court should hear the matter.
PPP/C Member of Parliament and Attorney at Law Anil Nandlall, who filed the matter, last month, is contending that the cases filed are public law cases and therefore should be heard by the Constitutional and Administrative Division of the High Court which is presided over the Chief Justice (Ag) Yonette Cummings- Edwards.
Following the elections, PPP/C Commissioners revealed that voters from six Local Authority Areas (LAA) are likely to return to the polls following equality (ties) of votes for the election of Chairman.
Representatives of the PPP/C have contended that the law is clear on this issue: in the event of a tie for the two or more candidates, another election is held in that particular Local Authority Area.
If a tie should again occur, the Minister with the responsibility of that department will name a Chairman of his choice.
But there have been reports that Mayors, Deputy Mayors, Chairpersons and Vice Chairpersons have been appointed in the six tied LAAs by the Minister of Communities, Ronald Bulkan.
Hence the Opposition party through their lawyer (Nandlall) secured a High Court ruling which quashed

Chief Justice (Ag) Yonette Cummings-Edwards

the Minister of Communities’ appointments and ordered Rule Nisi of Prohibition, restraining persons from acting as or performing the functions of Chair Persons or Deputy Chair Persons in respect of the said NDCs.
The legal effect of these Orders of Court is that the selection of these officials has been put on hold and these persons are restrained from acting in those capacities.
On Wednesday, Nandlall explained that when the cases were filed, the Chief Justice (Ag) was out of the jurisdiction and the matters were initially assigned to Justice Diana Insanally by the relevant official(s) in the Judiciary with the authority to do so.
He recalled that when the matters were heard on the 6th day of April, 2016, Justice Insanally indicated that she was instructed only to hear the Orders Nisi and then to transmit the matters over to the Chief Justice (Ag).
“This Justice Insanally did and the Orders granted reflect that the matters were fixed before the Chief Justice for the 20th of April, 2016, for continuation,” he added.
“When I turned up at the Chief Justice’s Court (Wednesday) morning, I was informed that the Chief Justice re-assigned the matter back to Justice Insanally,”
the lawyer noted adding that when the matters were called before Justice Insanally, she expressed deep reservations about hearing the matters, contending that the matters should be heard by the Chief Justice and that she sent a note to this effect to the Chief Justice.
“Eventually, Justice Insanally heard the matters and leave was granted to the Attorney General to file and

Justice Diana Insanally

serve Affidavits in Answer within seven days. Leave was also granted to me to file and serve Affidavits in Reply within 7 days of receipt of the Affidavits in Answer. The matters were adjourned to the 6th of May, 2016, for hearing.”
Nandlall said that the party is still unclear before which Court the matters will be heard as Justice Insanally continues to maintain that the matters should be heard by the Chief Justice.
The matters were adjourned to the 6th of May, 2016, for hearing.