CCJ hears recount case today

Jul 01, 2020 News

---

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will today hold a singular hearing for the recount case, filed before it by People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) presidential candidate, Irfaan Ali, to challenge the ruling of the Court of Appeal in the case of Eslyn David v. the Guyana Elections Commission.

The matter is ultimately about the elections results and whether Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield should revise the results of the recount to remove votes, which he considers invalid. The major issue driving public interest in the matter is that whether such a revision could ultimately determine the victor in the March 2 General Elections. While the recount shows that the PPP/C won 233,336 valid votes over APNU+AFC’s 217,920 valid votes, Lowenfield’s revision seeks to dump 115,844 valid votes, giving a victory to the coalition.
The case could see a protracted electoral battle over the presidency, between David Granger and Irfaan Ali, come to a sudden culmination.
It was after the results of the recount were published far and wide, that Eslyn David approached the Court of Appeal on the same day on which Lowenfield was expected to submit those results for the Elections Commission to consider and declare.
Represented by Attorney-at-Law Mayo Robertson, David asked the Court to grant a series of orders, which would prevent GECOM from declaring the result of the elections without determining the “final credible count” or without ascertaining the credibility of the elections. It also asked the Court to interpret Article 177 (2) of the Constitution – which speaks to the identification of the President-elect – to mean “more valid votes” where it states “more votes”.
To Lowenfield, and according to the numbers in his preliminary report, such orders would have given him the latitude to do one of two things: (1) To ascertain that the elections were not credible or (2) To discard 269,619 votes, a majority of the legitimate votes cast in the General Elections, and hand a victory to APNU+AFC.
The opposing argument in the matter was essentially that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the PPP/C had stated that the apparent attempt being made by David was for the Court to entertain some form of an elections petition.
GECOM Chair, Justice Claudette Singh, had argued that GECOM could not clothe itself with the authority of an election court and determine the validity of the election. Article 163 of the Constitution grants exclusive authority to handle such matters to the High Court.
The Court, in a 2-1 judgment, ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter and ruled that “more votes” means “more valid votes” as David had requested. However, the Court did not grant any of the injunctive reliefs sought by the applicant.
At the end of the delivery, the Court ordered a three-day stay on its judgment. It was within that period that Lowenfield submitted a ‘final’ report to GECOM, with a new revision of the elections results that sought to discard 115,844 valid General Election votes. In his cover letter to the Chair, Lowenfield claimed that his report was guided by the ruling of the Appeal Court, despite the fact that he had submitted it during the period of the stay. His submission was seen as insubordination, as Justice Singh’s instruction was for him to submit a report on the results of the recount.
As the three-day stay on the Court’s judgment came to a close, the PPP/C announced that it had approached the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) with a request for it to strike down the Appeal Court’s judgment as it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Notably, APNU+AFC campaign manager, Joseph Harmon has joined the case and has submitted that the Caribbean Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, as David had filed it under Article 177 (4) of the Constitution. That Article grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal to determine the validity of the elections in so far as that question depends on the qualification of a person for election or the interpretation of the Constitution. Harmon contends that the judgment of the Appeal Court under that Article is final, as the Article states that any decision of the Court under the paragraph shall be final.
The Court today will hear arguments on its jurisdiction to hear the recount case, and arguments about the merits of the recount case. After the hearing, the Court is expected to announce a date for judgment(s). If it has jurisdiction, it will rule on the case as well, determining whether to strike down the Appeal Court’s ruling. If it does not have jurisdiction, the appeal will be dismissed.

---

---