CJ to rule today on jurisdiction to hear elections results case

Mar 08, 2020 News

---

In an emergency sitting held at the Georgetown High Court on Saturday, Chief Justice (Ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire, heard preliminary arguments in the case filed against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) over a failure to verify the vote count for Region Four.

The People Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) is seeking orders to prevent incumbent David Granger from being sworn as President on the grounds of electoral fraud.
The PPP/C had previously secured an injunction which restrained officials of GECOM from declaring the results of the 2020 elections, unless the electoral process as prescribed by law in section 84 of the Representation of the People Act is compiled with.
Section 84 of the Act sets out, inter alia, the procedure for tabulation of the elections results.
According to the injunction, the PPP/C is seeking orders against GECOM that no declaration must be made until and unless the Returning Officer (R.O) Clairmont Mingo, Election District Number Four in Guyana, and GECOM Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, comply with and ensure the compliance of the process set out by the provision letter and spirit of section 84 of the Act.
On Thursday, the applicant, Reaz Holladar, made an oral application at the High Court for judicial review. The move came after Region Four R.O. to declare the results for Region Four, against an agreement between the PPP/C and GECOM for a further verification.
Yesterday, Chief Justice George-Wiltshire committed that she will try to work assiduously to address the matter even as Senior Counsel, Neil Boston and Douglas Mendes, addressed the court on preliminary issue of jurisdiction.
Justice George-Wiltshire appealed to the lawyers for their cooperation even as she noted that the “nation is waiting” on the outcome of the matter.

The High Court is set to sit again today from 13:30 hours for the CJ to rule on the preliminary point of whether she has jurisdiction to hear the matter.
At the initial stage of the hearing, Boston raised the objection to the manner in which the application was filed. He contended that there is specific illegality, which addresses the result or the outcome of the elections.
The lawyer stressed that such issues are to be raised in an election petition and not by way of judicial review.
Boston continued that an elections petition has to be filed within 28 days after the results of the elections have been declared by GECOM. Citing related-case laws, Boston argued that the process could not be challenged before completion of the elections.
“The election is still in process so if the election is in process, you can’t come with an intermediate action to challenge it.
“This is not a two-step stage; it’s only one and that stage is only after the results have been declared. The issue of an election petition follows,” said Boston
He argued too that the method provides that the Chief Elections Officer will have to produce certain elections documents in accordance with the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act.
In short, Boston held that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application.
Senior Counsel Mendes countered Boston‘s arguments noting the points raised by Boston are not relevant to the reliefs sought by the PPP/C.
“The arguments do not apply since the process of the elections has not yet been completed. The final declaration has not been made by GECOM.”
According to Mendes, the Opposition party is only seeking transparency and fairness in the electoral procedure irrespective of which Party is declared the winner.
The lawyer told the court that the vote verification process for Region Four was stopped and delayed on several occasions. According to Mendes only 421 of the 879 ballots were completed when the R.O took a decision to declare Region Four results. He said that the PPP/C agents objected to the declaration.
He pointed, too, that there is a deviation from the verifying procedure using figures from a spreadsheet, instead, and in place of Statements of Polls (SoP).
He said that process disclosed major discrepancies when compared to the SoP in possession of the various political parties as well as international and local elections observers.
The Trinidad-based lawyer cited Section 86 (1) of the Representation of the People Act and the procedures which it sets out.
Mendes also cited the case of Joseph Hamilton v Guyana Elections Commission & Others— a matter which was heard by Justice Desiree Bernard at the Caribbean Court of Justice, CCJ.
Mendes held that the case is geared towards a proper election and that the court has a responsibility to guard against fraud.
As such, he noted that reliefs being sought by the PPP include a decree that the Returning Officer declaration was in breach of the Representation of the People Act, and is unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, null, void and of no effect.
Outside the courtroom, PPP executive and attorney at law Anil Nandlall expressed similar views.
In response to questions posed Nandlall retorted ,“Why should the law allow or the judiciary allow an entire government to be stolen and then grant redress? That’s the counter to that argument.
“Is the law so asinine that it will stand idly by and allow a clear illegality to take place and allow a completely illegal government to be installed and then step in to remove that government?”

 

---

---