Dear Editor,
The world is vociferously and incessantly pleading for the Guyanese nation, which is being held hostage and undergoing severe torture by the APNU/AFC Coalition. This was once again ventilated by the Organization of American States (OAS) at its meeting specially held to address the current electoral situation in which the APNU/AFC is bent on rigging the 2020 Elections.
At that meeting, 21 countries, including all 14 CARICOM countries, called for the declaration of the Recount results to be announced, so that there is a peaceful transition of government. The message is clear, that should the Coalition fail to comply, Guyana risks becoming a pariah state, there will be serious consequences for subverting democracy, and there is imminent danger of being expelled from the OAS as well as other reputable international organizations.
The message from the world leaders who echoed the Inter American Democratic Charter are clearly conclusive that another dictatorship will not be tolerated; but, despite this, Granger once again is bent on his nefarious and wicked journey to thwart the will of the Guyanese people by appealing a most comprehensive and legally correct decision handed down by Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George.
In that clear and concise judgment, the Chief Justice made it clear that the CCJ had already pronounced on the same issues; namely: that it is mandatory that GECOM, and more specifically the CEO, use the recount results to compile his report; and that Section 22 and Section 18 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act No 15 of 2000 and Order 60 are not unconstitutional.
The Coalition, through its surrogate Misenga Jones, applied to the High Court for 28 orders which sought to discredit and discard the recount results and use the fraudulent results of Region 4 Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo as the basis for the CEO to make his report, and hence the declaration. Such a declaration would see the Coalition as the ‘winner’.
The Chief Justice, in the matter of whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application, ruled thus, “This court does have jurisdiction, albeit limited to where GECOM has acted or is about to act in excess of its constitutional and/or statutory powers”. She supported this with Justice Bernard’s rulings in the Norton case, where she ‘clearly emphasised that the court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction in election cases outside a challenge to the validity of the elections by way of election petition’.
But thereafter she struck down the applicant’s orders sought one after the next. On the question of whether Section 22 is constitutional, the Chief Justice ruled that the CA having pronounced that a challenge to the constitutionality of section 22 would be for an election petition, the principles of res judicata apply. So, having been raised and, importantly, dealt with by the Court, it cannot be canvassed again.
We have seen that despite this, the Coalition has appealed to the Court of Appeal. Now the Court of Appeal is being asked to upturn its own ruling.
The Chief Justice was adamant that she is bound to follow this decision, since she can ‘discern no distinguishing feature’ that would allow her to depart from that judgment. In relation to Order 60, the CJ ruled thus, “I have concluded that a holistic review of the CCJ judgment in ALI supports the contention for the Chairperson and the added respondents that this issue is indeed res judicata. Thus, the interpretation of the CCJ decision by the appellant, the CEO and the AG is hopelessly flawed.
“The CCJ judgment lends to the ineluctable conclusion that the recount votes are ex facie valid, hence the view expressed that any irregularities would have to be addressed via an election petition”.
She further clarified that the CCJ “re-emphasised that Order 60 did not, and could not, create a new election regime”. Again, the Coalition will be asking the Court of Appeal to upturn a decision of the CCJ, the apex court of the land.
Furthermore, on the question of whether the declarations of the Returning Officers for the Ten Electoral Districts made pursuant to Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act should be set aside, she ruled thus, “The declarations of the returning officers…have been overtaken by events whereby GECOM, in its wisdom, considered that there were difficulties that had to be addressed in order to produce what is termed Order 60 as a credible recount…and was meant to address them”.
She further added that the Court of Appeal in the Moore matter had ruled that it is “within GECOM’s functions to resolve those controversies as part of its responsibilities to deliver results of the elections.” This was also echoed in the rulings of the CCJ. Therefore, the recount cannot be considered to be invalidated, and the CEO cannot act as a ‘lone ranger’ since he is “subject to the direction and control of the Commission”.
On the other hand, she was clear that “the ten declarations cannot be resurrected at this point in time”. The CCJ has already determined that, “unless overturned by a Court in an Election petition, the only data that could be used for the declaration of the results of the elections would have to be the recount results or data”.
The learned Chief Justice agreed that the reliefs sought ‘mirrors’ those in the Moore matter and the Ali case, and therefore the doctrine of res judicata applies, since these “issues have been litigated previously and determined by Courts that take precedence over this High Court”.
There is therefore concluded that there is not an iota of doubt in any reasonable person’s mind that the frivolous appeal by Granger and his cabal will never succeed at the Court of Appeal, since the Chief Justice’s ruling is clear, unambiguous, and correct in law.
Unfortunately, Granger’s recent statement that he will not accept the recount results is indicative that he will not accept the Court’s decisions as well, as he has been doing with the CCJ’s rulings. When will Granger understand and accept that he is now running out of options? The CCJ will not rule in the Coalition’s favour and against its own judgment.
The con game is at an end. Karen Cummings and Basil Williams lied at the OAS meeting, and only made matters worse, as Granger will continue his ignominious journey to defy the Courts’ rulings, the Constitution, the CARICOM-certified recount, and ultimately GECOM’s declarations.
Granger’s inglorious journey will come to an end one way or another. At this point, the Chairperson of GECOM must go ahead and put an end to the ridiculously long extended electoral process by using the recount results; there is no other way. Let Granger and his cabal continue their defiance to their detriment, but the will of the electorate must be respected.
Yours sincerely,
Haseef Yusuf
