Latest update January 25th, 2025 7:00 AM
Latest News
- Gov’t to add $5.9M in debt to every household by the end of 2025- Shadow Finance Minister
- Speaker blocks Opposition Chief Whip from highlighting allegations of corruption by VP Jagdeo, Ministers, Police Force
- US military aircraft deport migrants as Pentagon readies more troops for border
- Pick-up driver dies in blaze after crash with truck at Bartica
- Police officer, former GRA staff found guilty of computer forgery
CJ throws out remaining election petition case
– says GECOM acted in accordance to law
Kaieteur News – Chief Justice (Ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire, S.C., has thrown out the only remaining election petition case filed on behalf of A Partnership For National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) party to challenge the legality of the March 2, 2020 Regional and General Elections.
Chief Justice (Ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire.
During her live-streamed ruling yesterday, the Acting Chief Justice (CJ) dismissed the case determining, inter alia, that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) acted in full compliance with the Constitution of Guyana and electoral laws in its conduct of the elections.
The first case was thrown out at a preliminary stage when the CJ determined that Petition #99 filed on behalf of Monica Thomas and Brendan Nurse could not be presented at a trial owing to non-compliance with effecting service on the second-named respondent, former President David Granger.
This case, filed under the name Petition #88, by petitioners Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick, sought to challenge Section 22 of the Election Laws Amendment Act (ELAA) and Order #60 of 2020, which is the recount order created based on Article 162 of the Constitution, was allowed to go to trial.
The parties have argued that results of the elections were to be deemed invalid due to serious non-compliance with the Constitution of Guyana and electoral laws as regards the holding of the elections.
However, in her ruling, the Chief Justice (Ag) noted that neither Section 22 of the ELAA or Order #60 is outside the realm of the Constitution. Justice George-Wiltshire held that the intent of Order #60 was to resolve irregularities, discrepancies, and anomalies occurring in the elections process and to determine a final credible count.
She noted that Section 22 is meant as an aid to the process to permit a determination of a result. It does not permit usurpation of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 163 of the Constitution, she added.
“Section 22 provides the parametres for its efficacy, and the power granted therein is not arbitrary. It includes sufficient mechanisms to establish that Parliament did not surrender or abdicate its powers. Thus, I hold that there was a lawful delegation of power as provided for in Section 22 so that GECOM could independently and properly control the election process…” the CJ added.
As it relates to Order #60, the CJ noted that Section 22 authorises the making of subsidiary legislation, in this case, Order #60. She said too that the power is only applicable when it appears to GECOM necessary or expedient for removing any difficulty.
Toward this end, the judge said that she did not accept the submission of [the petitioners] that the power to modify the law can only be futuristic because this would not affect difficulties that would have arisen, that is, a situation that must have occurred in the past.
“The provision authorises action to remove difficulty. Therefore, it is meant for difficulties that that have already occurred to be addressed,” she said.
As it relates to the powers of GECOM pursuant to Article 162, the CJ noted that contrary to the arguments of the petitioners’ (#88), Order #60 does not confer any additional powers on GECOM but simply alters the procedure to arrive at the result that the Representation of the People Act requires.
“While the procedure [in this case] was different, the aim and objective were the same. That is, to count the ballots and determine the votes cast for the list of the political parties who contested the elections,” she added.
Earlier this month, oral arguments for the case were made before the Acting Chief Justice to which several lawyers, including GECOM’s attorney, Dominican Senior Counsel, Anthony Astaphan, made submissions.
Astaphan had essentially argued to have the petition dismissed. He told the Court there was no breach of the Constitution or the law.
Astaphan had emphasised that Section 22 got its constitutional authority and genesis from the Constitution. He noted too that Order #60 is entirely consistent with the Constitution and the purpose was transparent, enacted in good faith and intended to remove the difficulties to allow for a declaration.”
The lawyer had further held that since there was difficulty with the elections, Order #60 of 2020 was created by virtue of Article 162 (1) (b) of the Constitution and Section 22 of the Election Laws Amendment Act to resolve irregularities, discrepancies, and anomalies occurring in the elections process and to determine a final credible count.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Development requires more than oil revenues
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- In one of the most impassioned pleas ever made, an evangelical Bishop Rev. Mariann Edgar... more
OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus
Antiguan Barbudan Ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The upcoming election... more
Weekend Cartoon
