AG asks Appeal Court to dismiss elections petition case

Mar 20, 2021 News

Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall, SC.

Kaieteur News – Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall, SC, has filed a motion to strike the elections petition appeal by Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse – supporters of the APNU+AFC opposition party.
The duo had moved to the Appeal Court challenging the dismissal of one of the election petition cases by Chief Justice (Ag) Roxane George-Wilsthire SC.
Justice George- Wilsthire had ruled in favour of an application filed by Nandlall in which he asked that the election petition be thrown out for non-compliance of effecting service on former President David Granger in accordance with Section Eight of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act and Rule Nine of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Rules.
However, both Thomas and Nurse have asked the Appeal Court to have the Chief Justice’s ruling reversed and have costs awarded to them.
In their appeal, the duo contends that the Chief Justice misdirected herself by dismissing the entirety of election petition No. 99-P of 2020 on the reason of non – service of Granger.
They argued that the case should not have been dismissed since the former President notified the court that he will not oppose the said election petition.
Nandlall has however asked the Appeal Court in a motion to strike down their request and uphold the decision of the Chief Justice.
In an affidavit in support of the motion, Solicitor General attached to the Attorney General’s Chambers, Nigel Hawke said that the CJ was in order when she dismissed the petition as a nullity for non-compliance with the strict rules for service.
Among other things, Hawke questioned whether the Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal brought by the Coalition since the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with election petitions.
He contends that if the Court of Appeal entertains the elections case, it would be unlawful, irregular, and unconstitutional.
In the motion, Hawke notes inter alia that the Election Petition jurisdiction of the High Court is sui generis (one of its kind) and should be regarded as such.
Further, the motion points out that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to hear an appeal from a decision of the High Court in an Election Petition must be founded in the Constitution or statute.
“The High Court has no inherent jurisdiction regarding its adjudication of an Election Petition. There is no statutory or Constitutional instrument granting jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal to hear an appeal of an Election Petition dismissed for procedural impropriety, or any other reason not stated in Article 163 (1) of the Constitution,” the motion added.
Further, it stated that “the decision of the CJ (ag) was not, and did not involve a determination of a question referred to in Article 163 (1) of the Constitution, or any Order made in the consequence of such determination.”
Additionally, the motion notes that Petition 99 of 2020 (99/20) is based on allegations of several irregularities in the conduct of the elections including: “Widespread voter impersonation; widespread noncompliance with documentation; flawed voters’ list; and several other irregularities”. Those issues, it stressed should be dealt with in an elections petition, not an appeal.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News