TODAY, two of the region’s leading legal luminaries would engage in a legal battle of words in the Court of Appeal on whether the Full Court erred when it ruled that the Court has no jurisdiction to review the actions of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) outside of an Elections Petition.
Grenadian Queen Counsel, Dr Francis Alexis, who is leading a battery of lawyers on behalf of Ulita Moore – the appellant, is likely to maintain the position that the Court can review the actions of GECOM in light of allegations that it may have acted outside of its constitutional powers when it opted to facilitate a National Recount under the supervision of a high-level team from the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) based on an agreement brokered by President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo.
Trinidad’s Senior Counsel, Douglas Mendes, who is leading another team of lawyers on behalf of Jagdeo – the seventh named respondent, is likely to argue that Section 140 (1) of the Representation of the People Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Court to hear Moore’s Fixed Date Application (FDA). He is maintaining that any challenge to decisions made by GECOM ought to be brought by way of an Elections Petition. Both Dr. Alexis and Senior Counsel Mendes will present their arguments via Skype.
Moore, a private citizen, wants the High Court to block the Elections Commission from facilitating a National Recount of all the votes cast at the March 2 General and Regional Elections, and to have a President of Guyana declared. But, the Full Court, in overturning an earlier decision by Justice Franklin Holder, ruled, on Tuesday, that any challenge to decisions made by the Elections Commission could only be done by way of an Elections Petition, and not Judicial Review, as outlined in the Constitution and Electoral Laws. Within hours of that ruling, Moore filed Notice of Appeal, inclusive of a request for leave to challenge the decision of the Full Court, which had comprised Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire and Justice Nareshwar Harnanan.
When the case – Ulita Moore v the Guyana Elections Commission and others – was called in the Court of Appeal on Thursday before Justices of Appeal, Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud and High Court Judge Brassington Reynolds, it was agreed that Mendes and his team would file their response by 17:00hrs on Thursday, while Dr. Alexis and his team would file their reply by 6:00hrs on Friday.
The oral arguments would then commence at 10:00hrs on Friday in the Court of Appeal. Justice Gregory said the Appellate Court will hand down its ruling shortly after, but did not specify a date or time.
Dr. Alexis is presenting Moore’ case in association with Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, Attorney-at-Law Mayo Robertson, and Attorneys-at-Law John Jeremie S.C., and Keith Scotland out of Trinidad and Tobago. Senior Counsel Mendes is appearing in association with Attorneys-at-Law Anil Nandlall and Davindra Kissoon while the Chairman of GECOM, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh is being represented by Attorneys-at-Law, Kim Kyte-Thomas. Senior Counsel Neil Boston is representing the Chief Elections Officer while Attorney-at-Law, Timothy Jonas, appeared on behalf of A New and United Guyana (ANUG), the Liberty and Justice Party (LJP) and The New Movement (TNM) – all added respondents in the matter.
In her application, Moore told the Appellate Court that the Full Court erred in law when it ruled that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear or consider the FDA. Outside the Court, Forde said the battery of lawyers representing Moore will reiterate her position. “Our position is that the ruling of the Full Court…was wrong in law, and we expect the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision of the Full Court,” the Senior Counsel told reporters.
Importantly, Forde said it is his expectation that the Elections Commission would await a ruling from the Appellate Court before making any decision.
“We expect that the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission would honour what she always says, that she will await the hearing of the process,” Forde said as he shut down suggestions by Nandlall that there is nothing stopping GECOM from proceeding with a national recount in light of the injunctions by Justice Franklin being lifted by the Full Court.
Forde drew attention to the fact that after the ruling of Justice Holder, Jagdeo, through his attorneys, filed an appeal to the Full Court. “It is amazing that after the ruling of Justice Holder, the other side felt it proper to file an appeal to the Full Court, but the court system recognises further appeals. So why is it only when they obtain a victory at the Full Court that the statement made by the Chairman of Elections Commission that she would wait for the outcome of the court proceedings, how that suddenly comes to an end. And that is the problem that we have been having throughout this process, whether from time to time, people are making selective statements,” Forde reasoned.
The Senior Counsel further pointed to the fact that once the Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo had made his declarations – the last of 10 – the Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield compiled his report with the results and submitted it to the Chairman of GECOM for deliberation at the level of the Elections Commission.
“GECOM was free to go ahead, even to present the report presented to them by Mr. Lowenfield. That report has been presented to the Chairman of the Elections Commission since the 14TH March; she was free to present that report since then,” he said as he brushed aside the issue of a recount. “Why a report can’t be presented to the Elections Commission,” he further questioned.
But Nandlall, in a separate interview, said he expects the Elections Commission to proceed with its work.
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle-epaper_04_03_2020