APNU/AFC’s latest court action meant to stall electoral process ꟷ Nandlall

…as APNU/AFC lawyer signals CCJ bid if case is dismissed by Appeals Court

Further litigation challenging a national recount of the votes cast at the March 2 General and Regional Elections has been dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and meant to stall the electoral process thereby further preventing a declaration of verified results.
This is the position of Attorney-at-Law Anil Nandlall after an appeal hearing was called up Thursday in the Court of Appeal by Justices Dawn Gregory, Rishi Persaud and Michael Brassington.
The appeal was filed by A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) candidate Ulita Moore, whose case challenging a decision by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to agree to a recount was thrown out by the Full Court on Tuesday.
Moore had originally filed for an injunction against the Commission, which was ordered by Justice Franklyn Holder.
The Full Court on appeal from Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo had found that Justice Holder did not have jurisdiction to hear the case and subsequently vacated the orders paving the way for a recount.

Moore has since challenged this decision and Attorneys Thursday made submissions for and against the appeal. The Attorneys have since been scheduled to present oral arguments today when the hearing resumes.
Justice Gregory has since committed to handing down a ruling on the matter today.
Speaking with reporters following an adjournment on Thursday, Nandlall reminded that there was nothing preventing the GECOM Chairperson in the interim, from going ahead with the recount.
He observed that the Attorneys for the APNU/AFC Candidate did not make an application for a stay of the Full Court’s ruling.

“Our position is that there is nothing stopping the recount from taking place, no injunction exists, none has been applied for, no stay of execution of any sort has been applied for in relation to the Full Court decision and of course, none has been granted,” he said.
The former Attorney General, in dismissing the latest court action as only meant to stall the electoral process, posited that “they have stalled it enough and it’s time that we conclude the elections and the rightful results be declared.”
Roysdale Forde, Attorney-at-Law for the APNU/AFC Candidate, in defending the decision to appeal the ruling of the Full Court, pointed out that the mechanisms exist and should the need arise to appeal at the level of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), that mechanism also exists given that “that is part of the legal system”. The court system, he said, “recognises further appeals”.
Forde told reporters it was the belief of the APNU/AFC team that the Chief Justice (ag) erred in her ruling that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case before it.
Acting Chief Justice Roxane George had at the time also denied a stay of her orders, on the grounds that an appeal was without merit.
Asked for details of the new submissions, Forde indicated that “our position is that the ruling of the Full Court, that it was wrong in law and we expect the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision”.
Speaking to the impact of the case on the work of GECOM, Forde said he expected that the Chairperson “would honour what she always says: that she would await the hearing of the process”.
The Chief Justice (ag) in handing down the Full Court ruling now being challenged had observed that Moore, in her petition to Justice Holder, contended that any order for a recount must be within the constitutional jurisdiction of GECOM, while Justice Holder held that the High Court remained that guardian of the constitution.
The acting Chief Justice also observed for the court the circumstances that have led to the failure to have election results one month after the polls, including difficulties with the declarations made by a Returning Officer, and the refusal of recounts.
In handing down her ruling, the acting Chief Justice was adamant, however, that article 162 (1) (B) of the Constitution gives wide powers to GECOM to ensure an impartial and fair process while Section 22 of Act 15 of 2000 supplies and supplements one of many mechanisms to ensure that there was compliance with Article 162.
According to Justice George, Section 22 of that law operationalises the functions of GECOM as mandated in Article 162 and specifically permits GECOM to address any difficulties encountered.
She noted that in situations such as these where Parliament is dissolved, there is no need for an order to be subjected to the National Assembly to deal with matters arising from the election.
Accordingly, Justice George ruled that it could not be in the jurisdiction of the High Court to prevent GECOM from meeting and discussing whatever was relevant to ensure that Article 162’s provision for an impartial and fair conduct of elections was carried out.
To do so would be to overreach and trespass on the functions of the Commission, she declared.
As such, the Chief Justice (ag) said the Full Court was of the view that Justice Holder would have erred in failing to fully take into consideration or apply the considering of similar cases.
She concluded in her analysis that any decision and function of GECOM in determining the results of an election would fall under Article 162 which speaks to inquiry into an act of the Commission.
According to the Chief Justice (ag), the Court is of the view that the filing of judicial review as done by Moore undermines the legislative process which affects finality in the election process and as such, the appeal is allowed and the order of Justice Holder that he has jurisdiction to hear the injunction case is vacated.