PPP/C moves to CCJ – Court blocks GECOM from declaring election results

Jun 24, 2020 News

---

Representatives of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) have moved to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) over the ruling on the elections credibility case.

The appeal to the CCJ follows the Appeal Court’s decision that the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) of the Guyana Election Commission (GECOM), Keith Lowenfield, must calculate the valid votes in determining the results of the elections.
The Appeal Court’s decision comes after a CARICOM – supervised recount exercise which showed that the PPP/C has over 15,000 votes ahead of the incumbent A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC).
Already the CCJ has issued an order to prevent any further action by GECOM until the hearing and determination of the matter. This is in spite of rhetoric peddled by the government that the ruling by the Appeal Court is final.The CCJ order will help maintain the status quo until further orders are granted pursuant to the holding of a full hearing of all matters in dispute. The full hearing is scheduled for July 1, 2020, the CCJ said in an email.The order requires that GECOM, its officers and agents take no step to prejudice the fair hearing of an Application made to the Court by Mohammed Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo.

The steps prohibit, including but not limited to, declaring the results of the Guyana elections held on 2nd March 2020 until the CCJ issued final orders following the hearing and determination of the questions raised before it in the said Application.Meanwhile the PPP/C, through its team of lawyers headed by Trinidad-based Senior Counsel, Douglas Mendes, has listed several grounds by which it believes the Appeal Court erred and failed in determining the application by Eslyn David.The document drafted on behalf of PPP/C General Secretary and Presidential Candidate Bharrat Jagdeo and Irfaan Ali outlined the Court erred and failed by holding that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the Notice of Motion under Article 177(4) of the Constitution, despite the absence of rules effectuating the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to determine questions as to the validity of an election of a President, as is required by Article 177(5) of the Constitution.
The Party contends inter alia that the Appeal Court erred in finding that it had jurisdiction to hear and consider the Notice of Motion even though a President had not yet been elected and the issue of the validity thereof had accordingly not yet arisen.
According to the PPP/C, the Appeal Court wrongfully assumed jurisdiction under Article 177(4) since resolution of the questions raised by Ms David did not depend upon the qualifications of the President or the interpretation of the Constitution as outlined by Article 177(4).

“Rather,” the PPP/C said, “it is upon the interpretation of the Order made by GECOM.”
Further, the Party believes that the questions raised by David fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 163 of the Constitution.
“All relief sought to be raised by David fell outside of the Court of Appeal’s delineated remit and jurisdiction under Article 177(4) of the Constitution. The issues outlined by David, could only be raised on an election petition pursuant to Article 163 of the Constitution.
They held that the Appeal Court erred by finding that the Guyana Elections Commission has the jurisdiction to assess, qualitatively and quantitatively, whether the tabulation of the votes as recounted and tabulated by the Chief Elections Officer constitutes “a final credible count” or otherwise enquire into the credibility of the tabulated votes arising out of the recount,” the Party said in the document.
The PPP/C noted the Court erred in law by interpreting Article 177(2)(b) and by modifying the provision to include the word “valid” and proceeding thereby to construe and interpret the Constitution of Guyana by reference to subsidiary legislation.
“In effect reviewing the decision of GECOM not to make any determination on the credibility of the election, in breach of s. 140(1) of the Representation of the People Act which prohibits any court from enquiring into whether any function of GECOM has been performed validly or at all,” the Party stated.
According to the Party too in making a determination, the Court in effect acted in contravention of the Constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers by authorising GECOM to usurp the specialised jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 163 of the Constitution.
They noted that “the scope of Article 177(2) of the Constitution could be modified or amended by virtue of any Order of GECOM or at all outside of the manner and form requirements mandated under the Constitution.”

 

---

---