…says will abide by CCJ’s decision
CHAIRMAN of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh has taken a back seat in the case filed by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision that Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution requires that the election of a President be made on the basis of valid votes cast.
On Sunday (June 28), Justice Singh, through her attorney, Kim Kyte-Thomas, informed the CCJ that she will not be actively participating in the case. “Please bring to the attention of the Honourable Judges that, on further consideration, we do not wish to actively participate in the Appeal. In the circumstances, we do not wish to make any submission,” Kyte-Thomas said in a letter to CCJ’s Registrar and Marshal, Jacqueline Graham.
Justice Singh is the third-named respondent in the case brought by the PPP/C’s General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo, and Presidential Candidate, Irfaan Ali. “We are a neutral party, and as usual will abide by the decision of the Court,” Kyte-Thomas told the Guyana Chronicle on Monday. North Sophia voter, Eslyn David; the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield; the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM); and the Attorney-General, Basil Williams are among the other respondents in the case.
The Application for Special Leave filed by the PPP/C stemmed from a decision handed down by a panel of three judges in the Court of Appeal in the case, Eslyn David v the Chief Elections Officer and others. Among the reliefs sought by David was an interpretation of the words, “more votes are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution, and the Court of the Appeal, upon assuming jurisdiction, ordered that the words be interpreted to mean “more valid votes are cast.”
Before the Appellate Court handed down its decision, the Chair of GECOM, through her lawyer, argued that David’s application was misconceived, and should be struck out. Kyte-Thomas had argued that while Article 177 (4) clothes the Court of Appeal with a “narrow special exclusive” jurisdiction to hear and determine questions relative to the validity of an election of a President, such jurisdiction was limited to qualification and or the interpretation of the Constitution.
“The Court of Appeal is, therefore, not vested with original jurisdiction to hear questions on the interpretation of the Constitution outside of this narrow special jurisdiction. It is the High Court which is so vested,” Kyte-Thomas had submitted to the Appellate Court. It was pointed out that Article 163 (1) (b) of the Constitution confers on the High Court the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of an election. Kyte-Thomas had also argued that David was not necessarily seeking an interpretation of the Constitution, but rather of Order No. 60, the legal tool used by the Elections Commission to facilitate the 33-day National Recount in its quest to determine “a final credible count.”
But the Court of Appeal, by a 2-1 margin, ruled on June 22 that it had jurisdiction to interpret Article 177 (2) (b) as provided for in Article 177 (4). Article 177(4) of the Constitution states: “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 that question depends upon the qualification of any person for election, or the interpretation of this Constitution; and any decision of that Court under this paragraph shall be final.”
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
High Court Judge, Justice Brassington Reynolds, who had formed part of the panel of judges in the Appellate Court, had explained that the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 163 of the Constitution, is separate and distinct from the exclusive jurisdiction granted to the Court of Appeal under Article 177 (4).
“The election petition process, as provided for under Article 163 and the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act, relates to the election of a person to the National Assembly; it however does not replace the Court of Appeal’s exclusive jurisdiction as it relates to the election of a person to the office of the president,” Justice Reynolds had said, while noting that Article 177 (4) provides an avenue for anyone to question the election of a President on two limbs; qualification and or interpretation of the Constitution.
Notably, while GECOM Chair, through her Legal Counsel, had made submissions in the case, Eslyn David v the Chief Elections Officer, she did not actively participate in the election cases brought by Reeaz Holladar and Ulita Moore in the High Court and Court of Appeal in March. In both cases, she had offered a commitment to abide by the ruling of the Court as is being done now.
But the PPP/C, in maintaining its long-held position that the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear the case brought by David, applied for special leave to appeal the Appellate Court’s decision at the level of the CCJ.
However, David’s battery of lawyers, with the backing of the Attorney-General, has asked the CCJ to refuse the application on the basis that under Article 177 (4), the decision of the Court of Appeal on the election of a President is final.
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-30-2020