High Court to hear case against GECOM over unverified election results

Mar 09, 2020 News

---

The High Court is scheduled to sit on Tuesday to hear arguments in the case filed against Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) over the verification of vote counts for Region Four.
Chief Justice (Ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire ruled yesterday that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the case, thus rejecting any attempts by GECOM‘s legal team to have the case tossed out at a preliminary stage.

Ruling on the point of jurisdiction, the Chief Justice took into consideration the issues raised by attorneys representing both GECOM and Reaz Holladar, the applicant in the matter.
The preliminary points were raised during emergency sittings of the High Court over the weekend.
At the initial stage of the hearings, GECOM’s Attorney Neil Boston.SC raised an 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.
According to Boston, such issues are to be raised in an election petition and not by way of judicial review.
But in her ruling, yesterday Justice George-Wiltshire said that the court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction outside the election petition.
Given her ruling, the Chief Justice will now delve into hearing the details of the case, which involves several absolute orders against GECOM.
The Chief Justice will begin hearing the case on Tuesday, March 10.
She will thereafter have to decide whether to direct the Returning Officer for Region Four, Clairmont Mingo, to go back to the verification process he started in the presence of international and local observers.
Orders were granted earlier last week by Justice Navindra Singh, after an application for injunctions to block GECOM from finalising the elections process under the current circumstances, was successfully made by Reaz Holladar, a citizen.
Holladar’s application is, among other things, seeking orders to prevent incumbent David Granger from being sworn as President for a second term on the grounds of electoral fraud.
The injunction sought restrains 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 Peoples 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 Representation of the People Act, Cap 1:03, Laws of Guyana.

The oral application for judicial review was made on Thursday at the High Court.
The move came after Region Four R.O attempted to declare the results for Region Four against an agreement between the PPP/C and GECOM for a further verification.
Chief Justice George –Wiltshire committed that she will try to work assiduously to address the matter even as Senior Counsels, Neil Boston and Douglas Mendes addressed the court on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction.
Justice George appealed to the lawyers for their cooperation even as she noted that the “nation is waiting” on the outcome of the matter.
At the initial stage of the hearing, Boston had 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.
“There is not a two-step stage, it’s only one and that stage is only after the results have been declared then the issue of an Election petition,” 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, stating that 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 4 was stopped and delayed on several occasions. According to Mendes, only 421of 879 Statement of Polls (SoPs) were completed when the R.O took a decision to declare Region’s Four results. He said that the PPP/C agents objected to the declaration.
He stated too that there was a deviation from the verifying procedure using figures from a spreadsheet, instead, and in place of SoPs.
He said that the process revealed major discrepancies when compared to the SoPs in possession of the various political parties as well as international and local elections observers.
The Trinidadian lawyer cited Section 86 (1) of the Representation of the Peoples 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 said that reliefs being sought by the PPP include a decree that the Returning Officer’s declaration was in breach of the Representation of the Peoples Act, and is unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, null, void and of no effect.

---

---