At a time when the world is in a crisis, APNU don't care about Guyanese. Money is wasted on court cases, while Guyanese are dying. 

Maybe, this was the plot by GECOM chairman to study the decision and give APNU time to file there appeal. 

The fight continue.....

They are given till Saturday, after then ABCE will make a proposal.

Coalition candidate appealing Full Court decision to throw out injunctions blocking

recount

Ulita Moore, the candidate of the Coalition APNU+AFC, of which President David Granger is leader, has now moved to the Court of Appeal to try to get the court to reverse Tuesday’s Full Court decision throwing out the injunctions blocking a recount of votes cast on March 02.

The Full Court, comprising Chief Justice Roxane George and Justice Nareshwar Harnanan, had Tuesday set aside a ruling by Justice Franklyn Holder that he had jurisdiction to hear a Fixed Date Application questioning the constitutionality of a recount proposed and/or intended by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).

The Full Court also set aside the Interlocutory Orders granted in the said application restraining GECOM to initiate the recount

The Full Court also refused a stay of its decision pending the hearing and determination of an Appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Full Court had even refused a request for leave to file an appeal.

But Moore, through her attorneys Roysdale Forde and Mayo Roberston, has now gone straight to the Court of Appeal to file an application for leave to file the appeal and for the said hearing of the application for leave to be treated as the appeal hearing.

Moore has been advised by her attorneys that the Full Court erred in law and in fact by finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear and consider the Fixed Date Application and that the Full Court also failed to construe the legislative regime governing disputes in relation to elections and failed to consider properly the relief sought by the application.

The Respondents named in the case are the Guyana Elections Commission, the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission, the Chief Elections Officer, Mark France, Daniel Josh Kanhai, John Flores and Bharrat Jagdeo.

The Court of Appeal has fixed a sitting for 10:00 hrs on Thursday to hear the case.

I am loosing my patience to all them mother fckers supporters, who continue to put their mouth up their arss 

The MF in the PNC have no shame. They are the most dishonest people on earth. FK Granger. He can put an end to this Shyte because Ulita Moore is his party candidate. I hope Corona F he up. 

So it is the Granger govt that's holding up everything. I was hoping this is not true but here we have it, this shit went to court, now they are playing games. These people are sleaze. Too bad its Covid time, the people should all come out in droves letting these creeps know they do not own the frigen country. This has gone too far now, time for civil disobedience.

@cain. Now that’s a good plan. These Granger people who are not part of the any government needs to be taught a lesson.

No good in the Banana Republic ,more freaking delays ,looks like this is never ending

Django posted:

No good in the Banana Republic ,more freaking delays ,looks like this is never ending

Who cause it?

cain posted:

Django posted:

No good in the Banana Republic ,more freaking delays ,looks like this is never ending

Who cause it?

Mingo first count wrong ,PPP/C protested ,court said count again ,count a second time , Court petitioned again ,Jugde said no jurisdiction to hear matter ,the quagmire continues.

Read the article below.

https://www.stabroeknews.com/2...ay-for-vote-recount/

April 1 2020

By Femi Harris-Smith

The Full Court yesterday morning discharged injunctions previously granted to APNU+AFC candidate Ulita Grace Moore, thereby paving the way for the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to commence a recount of the votes cast at the March 2nd polls.

Delivering the judgment of the Full Court, acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire SC, who along with Justice Nareshwar Harnanan had stayed a ruling made by Justice Holder giving himself jurisdiction to hear Moore’s matter for judicial review, said that that matter ought to have been brought by way of an elections petition.

Jagdeo had challenged Justice Holder’s decision to hear Moore’s case, arguing that the judge had no jurisdiction to enter into an inquiry into GECOM’s decisions and contending that it could only have been brought by an elections petition.

Following Justice Holder’s ruling late last week, Jagdeo, through his battery of attorneys, including Anil Nandlall and Trinidadian Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, appealed, and at the same time asked the judge to stay his ruling pending the outcome of their appeal to the Full Court.

Justice Holder had not granted a stay.

It was not until Monday that the Full Court granted a temporary stay, pending the outcome of its hearing of the matter yesterday when it also ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal mounted by Jagdeo.

The ruling of the Chief Justice and Justice Harnanan detailed that Moore’s matter, which was before Justice Holder, could not be heard by judicial review.

Justice George-Wiltshire said that unlike the first case mounted by Reeaz Hollader seeking judicial review, which she had jurisdiction to hear, Moore’s case did not fall into the same category.

The judge distinguished Hollader’s case, which she said essentially questioned the act/omission of an individual which according to law, is subject to judicial review.

On the other hand, however, the Chief Justice said that Moore’s case sought to challenge the act/omission of the entire Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).

She explained in the ruling that because GECOM was an autonomous body, the court could not interfere with decisions it may make with regards to its mandate of having full authority over Guyana’s electoral process.

She said that while it is no doubt prudent that GECOM discharges its functions in a fair and transparent manner, the court could not interfere with its deliberations and decisions.

The judge said that matters such as that brought by Moore would have to be mounted by an elections petition, which the law specifically provides for and not in an interlocutory handling by judicial review.

In the circumstances, the court declared that it would allow Jagdeo’s appeal and that the injunctions previously granted by Justice Holder would be discharged, resulting in Moore’s matter effectively being dismissed.

Jagdeo’s legal team had argued that Section 140 of the Representation of the People Act prohibits the High Court from inquiring into any decision or acts by the Commission other than by way of an elections petition.

The effect of the Full Court’s ruling essentially now places in the hands of the Elections Commission whether a full recount of all ballots will be done.

Chairperson of the Commission retired Justice Claudette Singh had previously given to the Chief Justice an undertaking that a recount would be done. It is now to be seen what action the Commission will take.

Moore’s attorney, Mayo Robertson, signaled his intention to appeal the ruling to the Court of Appeal.

He had asked the Full Court to stay its ruling, pending the hearing and determination of his appeal, but this was refused.

The court endorsed Mendes’ contention that the appeal had no real merit or prospect of success, which he said is an essential prerequisite. Robertson disagreed, stating that it may well be that the appellate court finds different. His position was, however, not accepted by the judges.

‘No jurisdiction’

Meanwhile, in a separate ruling yesterday afternoon, Justice Franklyn Holder dismissed Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo’s challenge to the controversial March 13th declaration of results for Region Four (Electoral District Four) made by Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, saying he had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Justice Holder said that in accordance with Article 163 of the Constitution, Jagdeo’s challenge to the March 13th declaration ought to have been brought by an elections petition and not by judicial review.

It was Mendes’ contention that as the Chief Justice had previously ruled, the RO’s actions were subject to review and so the court ought to have heard his client’s case.

Having laid down his ruling, however, Justice Holder said that he was not of the opinion that the law contemplated two legal attacks where a challenge which ought to be brought by an elections petition can also be interrogated by judicial review.

Following the ruling, Mendes enquired from the judge whether he would be dismissing the case but was told by Justice Holder that having declined jurisdiction he would be making no further pronouncements on the case.

Mendes, however, raised the issue that unless the judge dismissed the matter, it would remain on file.

Senior Counsel Neil Boston, who represents Mingo and Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, who are respondents in the matter, said that having declined jurisdiction, the court did not need to do anything further.

After seeking the guidance of other attorneys at the bar, however, the judge said that the matter stood dismissed.

Speaking to reporters following the hearing, Boston said that as it currently stands given Justice Holder’s ruling declining jurisdiction of Jagdeo’s challenge, it is the APNU+AFC incumbent which has won the elections. The Mingo declaration had controversially put APNU+AFC ahead but would still have had to be approved by GECOM before a final result was declared.

Meanwhile, Nandlall, in his comments to the media, described Justice Holder’s decision declining jurisdiction to hear his client’s matter as a very “strange” one, stating that the very judge in what he (Nandlall) said was an identical judicial review proceeding filed by Moore, granted injunctions and later gave himself jurisdiction to hear that case.

He said that he could not understand how the judge “suddenly lost jurisdiction.”

The lawyer, however, said that Justice Holder’s decision does not affect the earlier Full Court ruling, which has essentially lifted the injunctions which had halted a recount, and noting that GECOM is free to proceed with that process.

Asked whether he would appeal Justice Holder’s ruling declining jurisdiction to hear Jagdeo’s case, Nandlall said that once the recount is done, there will be no need to appeal that decision.

He emphasised the commitment given by the GECOM Chair to a recount.

He said that it is not his team’s intention to keep the matter in the court when the solution to the issues lies outside the court in the hands of GECOM through a recount

Moore, in her application for judicial review, had contended that GECOM could not order a recount based on an Aide Memoire signed by President David Granger and Jagdeo.

President Granger had contacted CARICOM’s Chair, Prime Minister of Barbados Mia Mottley, and agreed for a recount to be done following controversy over the tabulation of the votes cast for Region Four, which opposition parties as well as international and many local observers say was not done in a transparent and credible manner.

An independent high-level team from CARICOM had then traveled to Guyana to supervise the recount, however this was aborted after Moore filed her application and was granted an injunction against the recount.

In her submissions to Justice Holder by way of an affidavit filed by her attorney Kim Kyte-Thomas, GECOM’s Chair has indicated that the Commission can take whatever action it sees fit to ensure the electoral process is fair and impartial as provided for in Article 162 (1) (B) of the Constitution.

Last Friday Justice Holder rejected a request by Jagdeo to have the Statements of Poll (SOPs) for Region Four disclosed to the court. The judge said at the time that the proper forum would be an elections petition.

The opposition PPP/C’s position has been that Mingo did not, as required by law, use the SOPs to tabulate the results he eventually declared.

Nandlall had contended that the SOPs ought to be disclosed in the interest of transparency so that they could be thoroughly scrutinised against the figures Mingo is purported to have declared as being an accurate representation of the votes cast for District Four.

Justice Holder on Friday, however, said that in accordance with the National Assembly Validity of Elections Act, all questions relating to the elections and the validity of same, ought to be dealt with by an elections petition. The judge had said that the crux of Jagdeo’s application calls for an enquiry into the validity of the elections itself.

Justice Singh, who is also a respondent in the cases, in an affidavit dated March 20th, had given an undertaking following a ruling delivered by Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire that should there be discrepancies in the SOPs called by Mingo with those held by political parties, then such discrepancies would be noted at the end of the process if they could not be addressed then, and she would endeavour to facilitate a recount at the level of the Commission.

Mingo never counted anything. He was suppose to verify the SOPs which up until now, he has failed to do so in a transparent and credible manner. Don’t try to put lipstick on a pig.

Ace posted:

Mingo never counted anything. He was suppose to verify the SOPs which up until now, he has failed to do so in a transparent and credible manner. Don’t try to put lipstick on a pig.

LAWS OF GUYANA
Representation of the People
Cap. 1:03

COUNTING OF VOTES POLLED

84. (1) As soon as practicable after the receipt of all the ballot boxes
and the envelopes and packets delivered to him in pursuance of section
83(10), the Returning Officer shall, in the presence of such of the
persons entitled under section 86(1) to be present as attend, ascertain the
total votes cast in favour of each list in the district by adding up the votes
recorded in favour of the list in accordance with the Statements of Poll,
and thereupon publicly declare the votes recorded for each list of
candidates.

What am i missing ??

Dave posted:

Coalition candidate appealing Full Court decision to throw out injunctions blocking

recount

Ulita Moore, the candidate of the Coalition APNU+AFC, of which President David Granger is leader, has now moved to the Court of Appeal to try to get the court to reverse Tuesday’s Full Court decision throwing out the injunctions blocking a recount of votes cast on March 02.

The Full Court, comprising Chief Justice Roxane George and Justice Nareshwar Harnanan, had Tuesday set aside a ruling by Justice Franklyn Holder that he had jurisdiction to hear a Fixed Date Application questioning the constitutionality of a recount proposed and/or intended by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).

These individuals seems to be unaware of the function of GECOM plus the decision of the Chief Justice.

Read what you highlighted, did Mingo count the total votes as per the SOP.  

adding up means summation of a set of numbers in this case the votes on the schedule of the SOP. Counting is counting of each vote. This is why a recount means opening the ballot boxes and counting each vote

@Abu Jihad. I think DJ has lost some of his marbles

Abu Jihad posted:

Read what you highlighted, did Mingo count the total votes as per the SOP.  

The second time ,that was done ,also there were people there.

Second time there was no ascertaining of the votes. He used a the spreadsheet with made up numbers. 

Ace posted:

adding up means summation of a set of numbers in this case the votes on the schedule of the SOP. Counting is counting of each vote. This is why a recount means opening the ballot boxes and counting each vote

Counting numbers means how many numbers are present. Summing means adding up all the numbers.. ... Let's assume there are numbers from 1 to 5.. So countingfrom 1 to 5 is 5 numbers where as summing numbers means adding 1+2+3+4+5 which is15.

What ever suits ,seems you went to Quora for an answer.

Seek the help of Quora ,for "verification" as stated what Mingo had to do.

@Django. Did you look at the videos where a female was reading off the numbers from the SOPs but were calling out numbers in favour of APNU than that what were on the SOPs?

nope. I used it show that I am not wrong. There is nothing worst than opening your open and let the world know how stupid your are.

Mingo and those who are part of this  should be kicked out and given a chance to do some street cleaning.

Ace posted:

@Django. Did you look at the videos where a female was reading off the numbers from the SOPs but were calling out numbers in favour of APNU than that what were on the SOPs?

Lowenfield in his affidavit states ,that's not true.

@Django. You seem to very defensive. The law states what verifications my friend. 

And you choose to believe Lowenfield over the video evidence. Now I can see your logic of thinking

Ace posted:

Second time there was no ascertaining of the votes. He used a the spreadsheet with made up numbers. 

Who said that?

The first time spreadsheet was mentioned uses to continue from where they left the prior day.

Ace posted:

nope. I used it show that I am not wrong. There is nothing worst than opening your open and let the world know how stupid your are.

Learning a few things ,then tapping your shoulder.

Ace posted:

@Django. You seem to very defensive. The law states what verifications my friend. 

I posted the document here did you download a copy ? see where Verification mentioned.

It doesn’t matter which time it was because there was at least two times where the spreadsheet was used. The second was just before Volda Lawerence signed on the region four results. Btw. Why are you focusing on the illegality of Volda Lawerence signature on election results

Ace posted:

And you choose to believe Lowenfield over the video evidence. Now I can see your logic of thinking

Video run Elections ,which is "supposed" to be secret.

People will go back and forth. All of this can end in the interest of all parties if the votes are counted by Caricom since ALL observer teams and ABCE have declared region 4 incomplete and unverified.

So, just count the blasted votes ! Who win win.

@Django. I just schooled you on counting. Providing a reference to support ones argument is widely acceptable. You on the other hand had to go look it up to prove me wrong. 

Volda Lawrence run elections?

Ace posted:

It doesn’t matter which time it was because there was at least two times where the spreadsheet was used.

The second was just before Volda Lawerence signed on the region four results. Btw.

Why are you focusing on the illegality of Volda Lawerence signature on election results

 Now it doesn't matters ,so what matters ?  where am i focusing on the illegality ? Volda Lawerance ,is the Party agent to be present ,i am not sure if it's illegal for her signature to be on the document, me thinks there is a court matter to decide.

Ace posted:

@Django. I just schooled you on counting. Providing a reference to support ones argument is widely acceptable. You on the other hand had to go look it up to prove me wrong. 

What ever bhai ,just keep it up .I am sure you understand what i meant ,just trying to be perfect, you should have use the source in the quote. Sometimes folks try to score cookie points in an a conversation.

APNU obviously lost hence the bullshit they are pulling. Had they won they would have already been in celebrating mode...and shown proof. In my opinion they lost.

@Django. Whatever dude.

cain posted:

APNU obviously lost hence the bullshit they are pulling. Had they won they would have already been in celebrating mode...and shown proof. In my opinion they lost.

The Elections are close, they know what the numbers are.

@Former Member,

 Now you know why the Coalition Commissioners made the request to the GECOM Chair for time to review the decision of the Full Court, which she granted. The real reason was to give them time to go to appeal to delay the matter. Claudette Singh is deep in this shit. She is a master corruptor , a person, Jagdeo always provides cover for.