Georgetown: At 13:30hrs. on Monday, the Court of Appeal will rule in the case seeking against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) where a Notice of Motion was filed restraining the Chief Elections Officer from ‘complying with the directions of Chairperson’ and as a consequence, a report was not submitted to declare the March 2, elections results.
The Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield was to submit the results of the recount which will lead to a declaration of the PPP as the winner and the subsequent swearing-in of Irfaan Ali as President.
The applicant, Eslyn David, has sought a declaration that GECOM has failed to act in accordance with the terms of the recount order to determine a final credible count and or the credibility of the result of the March 02 elections.
She also wants an interpretation of the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution of Guyana.
David’s application was filed pursuant to Article 177 (4) of the Constitution of Guyana. Article 177(4) provides: “The Court of Appeal shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to the validity of an election of a President in so far as the question depends upon the qualification of any person for election or the interpretation of this Constitution….”
David’s application was supported by Attorney General Basil Williams, but the applicant’s attorney parted ways with the Attorney General who called for an annulment of the elections.
Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission, Justice Claudette Singh, in her affidavit, 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.
Justice Brassington Reynolds, one of three judges hearing the case, asked Ms Kyte whether she agreed that one of the objectives of the Recount Order specifies the need to establish the credibility of the Elections.
She agreed but said it is not for the Court of Appeal to interpret the Order since it can only interpret the Constitution. She repeated that questions regarding the credibility of the elections must be answered through an elections petition in the High Court.
You must be logged in to post a comment.