Georgetown: On Monday, the Appeal Court’s decision was 2-1, with Justices Dawn Gregory-Barnes and Brassington Reynolds agreeing that the court has jurisdiction to hear an elections case for GECOM and furthered interpreted that “more votes are cast” means “more valid votes are cast.”
APNU/AFC supporter Eslyn David wanted the Court to find that the Chief Elections Officer must first determine credible votes cast to calculate the election results of the March 2, 2020 polls.
However, Justice Rishi Persaud, with counter-arguments that the Court of Appeal was the wrong court to approach to settle questions about the credibility of the elections and he held that any such questions must be answered through an elections petition at the High Court and only if there is a difficulty with the decision there can the matter then be brought to the Court of Appeal.
But the Court did not block the Elections Commission from carrying out its work and granted a three-day stay of the order in which it inserted the word “valid” in the Constitution.
The Chief Elections Officer in his report of the national vote recount showed the totals for the ten electoral districts which were signed off by GECOM’s own staff as being valid; when added up, Lowenfield’s report shows the Opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP) winning the elections by 15, 416 votes.
But his report also showed how many votes would be affected if the votes in the boxes which APNU+AFC called into question during the recount were to be discounted.
But the CEO had noted that he could not ascertain whether the elections process was credible.
Justice Reynolds concluded that Article 177 (4) established a separate exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters regarding the qualification of any person for the Office of President or the interpretation of the Constitution on such matters.
He said that while the Constitution and the country’s electoral laws provide for the High Court to answer questions regarding the validity of the elections, absolutely no provision is made in these to determine questions of the qualification of a President and so it must be dealt with in the Court of Appeal.
Regarding orders, Reynolds agreed that no injunctive relief could be granted and the Court was clear that it could not determine whether Lowenfield’s report is valid or not.
Article 177 (2) points out that if they’re more than one parties contesting the elections, the presidential candidate for the party with more votes cast would be deemed the President-elect, but Reynolds ordered that the words more votes cast in Article 177 (2) (b) should be interpreted to mean more “valid” votes cast within the meaning of the recount order.
The Court of Appeal did not agree with the argument that it only had the power to determine questions regarding the qualifications of a President and since the elections are not yet over and no President yet elected, the proceedings brought by the Coalition supporter was premature.
Justice Gregory’s ruling mirrored that of Justice Reynolds. According to her, “more votes cast” has to be interpreted within the terms of the Order which she said has sufficient force to impact the interpretation of those words as it relates to the March 02, 2020 elections. The court would not be venturing out of its jurisdiction in giving an interpretation, Justice Gregory underscored as she placed emphasis on Article 177 (4) of the Constitution.
In light of the foregoing, she held that the words “more votes cast” have to mean “more valid votes”. Against this backdrop, the Court of Appeal granted the Order sought by David for there to be an interpretation of Article 172 (b) of the Constitution. The other reliefs sought in the motion by David were refused.
Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission, Justice Claudette Singh in her affidavit had argued that when one reads the entire Article 177, the Article contemplates a person already declared by GECOM as President.
“It is respectfully submitted that the electoral process has not reached this stage,” she stated.
She said the first two orders sought to seek a Declaration that GECOM failed to act in accordance with its order to determine the credibility of the elections do not touch and concern the qualification of a person elected President.
“It is respectfully submitted that the application is misconceived and ought to be struck out forthwith,” the GECOM Chair states in her affidavit, which was submitted by her attorney Kim Kyte.
In any event, Justice Singh said the Order sought by the applicant amounts to the interpretation of an Order and not the Constitution.
The GECOM chair, in her affidavit, had noted that “the Commission cannot arrogate onto itself a jurisdiction to determine the credibility an election.”
“Even if the court grants the orders sought, what is the next position? Can this court direct GECOM what to decide? Can this court order GECOM to hold a fresh election? Are these orders even sought? The short answer is no since this is not an election court,” Justice Singh’s affidavits state.
She argued that the forum of the elections court is the appropriate place to assess the evidence to determine if it has crossed the threshold of sufficiency to vitiate the 2020 Election and GECOM does not have that jurisdiction.
You must be logged in to post a comment.