Georgetown: Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall was on Tuesday given the green light to approach the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to appeal the decision of Guyana’s Court of Appeal (CAO) to hear an appeal for an elections petitions case that was thrown out.
This publication had reported that on January 18, 2021, Chief Justice (Ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire, had thrown out an election petition case (99/P) –the case was thrown out on the grounds of procedural non-compliance of service on leader of the A Partnership for National Unity +Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) party and former President, David Granger.
However, the matter was later appealed and Guyana’s Appellate Court on December 21, 2021, in a majority decision, ruled that it has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal which challenged the decision of the acting Chief Justice. On that date, a stay on the decision was granted by the Court after the Attorney General and others made a request since they have intentions on moving to the CCJ over the Court’s ruling.
Following through with his intentions, on Monday January 10, 2022, Nandlall filed a Notice of Motion at the Appellate Court’s office located in Kingston, Georgetown. According to the Notice of Motion that was seen by this publication, the Attorney General asked the COA to grant an order to leave to move to CCJ to appeal the Court’s decision, and to grant a further stay on its December 21, 2021, decision pending the appeal to the CCJ.
On Tuesday morning when the matter was heard, both the stay and leave was granted by Chancellor of the Judiciary (Ag), Yonette Cummings-Edwards. While the former Attorney General (AG), Basil Williams, SC who is representing the interest of former President, David Granger stated during his address to the court that he will abide by the court’s decision – Roysdale Forde, SC who is the lead attorney representing the appellants, Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse, made objections to the Attorney General’s application.
In fact, Forde said, “I would like to bring to the court’s attention, an important consideration which is the state of this matter. Your honour I know of no case which would have been brought to the CCJ in similar circumstances where a substantive appeal is pending before the court of appeal in anyone of the signatory countries.”
Forde highlighted that the CCJ has indicated that these matters must first be heard and completed in their respective Appellate Court in that jurisdiction before the matter is brought before the CCJ. To this end he stated that it is with proper consideration that he ought to bring to the Court’s attention that the resolution has not been pointed out in any specific case by the CCJ, as to what happens in such circumstances.
Forde then noted that if the Appellate Court has delivered its decision on the issue of whether the type of order being sought ought to be granted, he relies on the Court’s position.
However, Trinidadian Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, Solicitor General Nigel Hawke, who appeared on behalf of the Attorney General, challenged Forde’s objection in a brief argument.
After listening to the lawyers address to the court, the acting Chancellor stated that it is desirable that the appeal be heard and that the interlocutory decision await the results of the substantive matter. “This is a matter of great public importance and given the nature of the application and the fact that the application is brought under the respective sections of the CCJ Act this court sees no reason it should not grant the leave and the stay in this matter,” she added.
To this end, the acting Chancellor ordered that the intended appellants lodge the sum of $750,000, with the Registrar as security for costs within 90 days.
According to the document that Nandlall filed, “The intended appeal is a matter of public interest, which touches and concerns national, general and regional elections and as such, are proceedings of great general and public importance.”
It was pointed out that the intended appeal is an arguable one with a realistic prospect of success on the issue of whether the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to hear the civil appeal.
Moreover, the first election petition #99 challenging the outcome of the March 2, 2020 elections was dismissed by the acting Chief Justice, on January 18, last, while the remaining election petition #88 was thrown out on April 26, 2021, by the acting Chief Justice. As such, the matters were appealed by the appellants on behalf of the A Partnership for Nation Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Coalition who are seeking to challenge the validity of the March 02, 2020, national elections.
You must be logged in to post a comment.