Chief Justice dismisses Shuman’s challenge to validity of house-to-house registration order - orders him to pay $400,000 in court costs

Chief Justice dismisses Shuman’s challenge to validity of house-to-house registration order – orders him to pay $400,000 in court costs

Aug 24, 2019 News

Chief Justice Roxane George yesterday dismissed an application filed by Lenox Shuman, Leader of the Justice and Liberty Party, challenging the validity of a June 11 order signed by then chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Justice James Patterson, for the commencement of house-to-house registration which was published in the Official Gazette.

Chief Justice Roxane George

Lenox Shuman

Deeming Shuman’s application an abuse of process and without basis, Justice George ordered him to pay $400,000 in court costs, $200,000 each to GECOM and the Attorney General, who were listed as Respondents in the court documents. Shuman, through his lawyer, Sanjeev Datadin had contended that the order was void because the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) invalidated Patterson’s unilateral appointment on June 18.

According to the Chief Justice, Patterson’s appointment was made by the President, and at the time the order was made, he (Patterson) was acting within the powers vested in him under Article 161 (2) of the Constitution of Guyana, until it was declared unconstitutional by the regional court. That being said, she held that Patterson had the authority to issue such an order.

In fact, Justice George held that the de facto doctrine applies in this case. The de facto doctrine is used to characterise an officer, a government, a past action, or state of affairs that must be accepted for all practicable purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate.
Datadin, however, had argued to the contrary. The lawyer had contended that since Patterson’s appointment was deemed void by the regional court, everything done under his hand can also be rendered void. Datadin had also argued that the setting of a date for the commencement of house-to-house registration was among other things, unlawful and made in bad faith.

This contention was dismissed by Justice George, who said that Patterson was acting within remit of his constitutional powers. Furthermore, Shuman’s lawyer had argued that the decision by GECOM to conduct house-to-house registration, a process that will run beyond the September 18 timeframe for elections, is totalling unreasonable.

The Chief Justice did not agree. She relied on the judgment of the CCJ in the consolidated No-Confidence Motion appeals, in which the court held that it does not have the authority to fix a date for elections, but rather that it was the role of the political actors, and implicitly, GECOM. Against this backdrop, she refuted the elections timeframe put forward by Datadin.

Referencing a ruling she made in the recent house-to-house registration challenge by lawyer Christopher Ram, Justice George pointed out that it was not the role of her court to set a date for elections, but rather for the political actors to return to Parliament and activate the extension proviso of Article 106 (7) since the March 21 timeframe for polls has already elapsed.

Shuman had also asked the court to award him costs and any other order, which the court deemed fit, but instead he was ordered to pay.