Yesterday, the Court of Appeal heard oral arguments on why the judgement of Chief Justice Roxane George on the status of the recount of the ballots cast in the March 2 elections should or should not be reversed. That the issues involved have already been subjected to judicial scrutiny at all levels: the High Court, the Appellate Court and the CCJ, and as such are res judicata or “already adjudicated” — and as such have already become stare decisis or “binding precedent” – are themselves being contested by the plaintiff, APNU/AFC agent Misenga Jones. Removing any doubt as to who is behind the series of dilatory lawsuits aimed at preventing a declaration of the elections results to show the PPPC winning, Basil Williams, Attorney General and former Chairman of the PNC, has filed an appeal identical to Jones’s.
What they are claiming, among several, is that Order 60 of 2020, which authorised the recount that PNC leader David Granger had proposed for Caricom to broker, was unconstitutional. It was the fruit of Sec 22 of Act 15 of 2000, which they claim is also unconstitutional.
Justice George had dealt extensively with this issue, but the AG and Jones are contesting her judgement because, they claim, when the matter of the recount was first objected to in the Courts, Order 60 had not been promulgated. We would remember that the first Caricom team had already flown in, and was ready to supervise the Recount then agreed to by the caretaker President, Opposition Leader and GECOM Chair when PNC agent Ulita Grace Moore resorted to the High Court to prevent this, then to the Full Court, and finally to the Appellate Court.
The gravamen of the contention by the PNC then was the constitutionality of Sec 22 of Act 15 of 2000, Elections Laws Amendment Act 2000. Sec 22, which is intituled “Removal of difficulties”, and subsection (1) states expansively: “If any difficulty arises in connection with the application of this Act, Cap. 1:03 Cap. 19:08 Representation of the People Act or the National Registration Act or any relevant subsidiary legislation, the Commission shall, by order, make any provision, including the amendment of the said legislation, that appears to the Commission to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty; and any such order may modify any of the said legislation in respect of any particular matter or occasion so far as may appear to the Commission to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty.”
Justice (Rtd) Claudette Singh had pointed out to the Appellate Court that Sec 22 above was given Constitutional imprimatur by Art 162 (1) (b) which declared, “The Elections Commission shall issue such instructions and take such action as appear to it to be necessary or expedient to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with the provisions of this constitution or of any act of Parliament on the part of persons exercising powers or performing duties connected with or relating to the matters aforesaid.” Under this mandate, GECOM had Gazetted Order 60 as subsidiary legislation to have the ballots recounted to remove the difficulty in the count after Reg 4 RO Clairmont Mingo had refused to comply with the directive of the High Court to transparently display the SOPs as they were tabulated.
It is our contention that if the CCJ could declare that Art 162 (1)(b) begat Sec 22 of Act 15 of 2000, which begat Order 60 of 2020, the case of Basil Williams and Misenga Jones should be thrown out as frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the court process.
We have gone in some detail to state the unembellished words of the law on this particular claim by Basil Williams and Misenga Jones, so that the ordinary citizen can understand that as the CCJ pronounced in the matter of what is the “majority” of the National Assembly, the law needs “no gloss” or explanation, as with the other claims that are of the same nature.
The Appellate Court must not conspire to make the law an ass.
