Attorney General files cross-appeal almost identical to appellant’s

Jul 24, 2020 News

---

Elections declaration case…

The cross-appeal filed on behalf of Attorney General (AG) Basil Williams S.C bears stark similarities with the appeal tendered on behalf of A Partnership for National Unity+ Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) Counting Agent, Misenga Jones.

Jones had filed an appeal just 24 hours before the AG, canvassing her disappointment in the decision of the Chief Justice (ag), Madame Roxane George-Wiltshire, in the elections declaration case.
She had listed at least twenty grounds in which she believes that the Chief Justice (CJ) erred or misdirected herself in law in making a ruling in the declarations matter.
In her Notice of Appeal (NoA), Jones said that inter alia the CJ erred in law when she failed to properly construe the terms and provision of Order 60 of 2020; when she ruled that the validity of order 60 of 2020 was res judicata; when she failed to consider that GECOM had exceeded its constitutional and statutory power when it issued and established the elements, mechanism and parameters of order 60 of 2020 in such terms.
In his cross-appeal, the AG similarly called for issue of validity order which was deemed res judicata by the decisions of the Court of Appeal (CoA) and Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and accordingly the CJ to be set aside.
The AG’s appeal outlined that the determination that Section 18 of the Elections Laws (Amendment Act No 15 of 2000 is not in conflict or tension with Article 177 of the Constitution, nor does it breach the separation of powers doctrine and is unconstitutional and should be set aside.
According to the document, the AG also wants the CoA to set aside the decision of the CJ that Order 60 of 2020 re

quires that the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) to use only the figures generated at the national recount.
Further, the document stated that the AG wants the Appeal Court to set aside the decision by the CJ that the principles of res judicata and stare decisis apply to the circumstances of the application and requires the High Court to dismiss it, given the binding rulings in the CoA and CCJ.
Additionally, the document listed 10 grounds of which AG is relying on in the course of the appeal.
Much like the original appellant, the AG noted that the CJ erred in law and misdirected herself on a number of grounds including her interpretation of the provisions of Article 177(2) (b) when she found that the CEO does not have a constitutional mandate under the said article; when she held that article 177” (2) (b) means that GECOM is not to act on the advice of any persons or body eternal to the commission.
Williams is contending too, that the CJ erred in law, when she failed to find that the Chairman of GECOM had abdicated her duty to have declared the Presidential Candidate on the APNU+AFC as the elected President, she being obliged to act only on the advice of the CEO, tendered to the Commission pursuant to Article 177 (2) (b).
He claimed too, that the CJ erred in law in her interpretation of Article 162 and 177 of the Constitution, more particularly Article 177 (2) (b) when she reasoned that Article 162 permitted GECOM to make Order 60 in present form, when she ought to have concluded under the rules of constitutional interpretation, that the Article 177 (2) (b) does not permit order 60 in its present form– that it is unconstitutional.
On the grounds of Appeal, the AG held that in his view the Judge erred in law and misdirected in the interpretation, Section 18 of the Elections Laws Amendment Act; Article 162, 177 (2)(b), the provisions outlined in the Representation of the Peoples Act by finding that issues were res judicata given the ruling of the CoA and CCJ.
The original Appeal filed on behalf of Jones also outlined that the CJ erred in her interpretation of Section 18 of the Elections Laws Amendment Act; section 96 of the Representation of the Peoples Act; and Article 177 of the Constitution.
In contrast, however, Jones’ appeal provided more details and referenced a number of affidavit evidence including those filed on behalf of Bharrat Jagdeo (the 7th respondent) which the judge failed to consider but would have allowed her to see that Order 60 of 2020 has its genesis in an unconstitutional attempt to challenge the lawfulness in the conduct of an elections.
Last Wednesday, Jones moved to the High Court for several orders, among them a declaration to prevent the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, from using the recount figures, which show a victory for the Opposition People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) over the incumbent APNU+AFC.
Though, the APNU+AFC is not listed as a party in Jones’ application, this is the third court case filed on behalf of supporters of the government to prevent GECOM from making the declarations.
The two previous cases were filed on behalf of Ulita Moore and Eslyn David, both supporters of the current government. All three cases were represented by the same batch of lawyers.
And of note, was the most recent admission by Government spokesperson, Joseph Harmon, that the Coalition will be appealing the CJ’s decision.

---

---