Skip to main content

FM
Former Member
CNN
January 15, 2001
 

Guyana judge declares 1997
elections null and void

 
 

          GEORGETOWN, Guyana (AP) -- A High Court judge on Monday declared
          Guyana's 1997 general elections null and void because of fraud and unfair
          restrictions, but she also said she cannot order a change of government.

          Justice Claudette Singh ruled the parliament had no right to approve legislation
          that requires voters to have special identification cards to vote. In the 1997
          elections, about 30,000 registered voters were not allowed to vote because they
          lacked the cards, even though they had other forms of official identification.

          Guyana is preparing for new elections on March 19, as both sides agreed to early
          elections to quell riots that erupted after the elections. Elections would have been
          due in 2002.

          Singh ruled that there also appeared to be instances of fraud at the polls, such as
          missing ballot boxes from opposition strongholds, but she cannot declare a
          change of government because there is no evidence that it would have changed
          the outcome.

          "It is the first time that a judge in the Commonwealth has nullified a national
          election altogether, totally," said Doodnauth Singh, who was then the elections
          commission chairman. "In most countries, they declare a constituency or
          regional elections as null and void, but as far as I know, a national election has
          never been so treated."

          The opposition People's National Congress, which filed the court challenge
          shortly after the elections, had alleged that elections officials rigged the vote to
          give the governing People's Progressive Party a second term in office.

          Former President Janet Jagan won the 1997 elections, but she stepped down two
          years later for health reasons, choosing President Bharrat Jagdeo to replace her.
          The government did not immediately respond to the court ruling Monday.

          Nearly 300 witness testified in the case in the former British colony in South
          America.

          Singh said the court would give further details on the implications of the ruling
          on Tuesday.

Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ

Replies sorted oldest to newest

FM Former Member

Were I the AG, I'd be hard at work creating "facts" in this election that can be used to obtain a writ from the High Court inclusive of a Conservatory Order.

 

This 1997 case is instructive because Justice Singh's ruling still left the door open to a Conservatory Order which will seek to maintain rather than alter the "status quo." The PNC lost this segment of the argument because they sought to alter the status quo which in the Anglo-Commonwealth tradition requires a heightened standard of inquiry and burden on the movant of the motion.

FM
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:

Were I the AG, I'd be hard at work creating "facts" in this election that can be used to obtain a writ from the High Court inclusive of a Conservatory Order.

 

This 1997 case is instructive because Justice Singh's ruling still left the door open to a Conservatory Order which will seek to maintain rather than alter the "status quo." The PNC lost this segment of the argument because they sought to alter the status quo which in the Anglo-Commonwealth tradition requires a heightened standard of inquiry and burden on the movant of the motion.

Attorney Shaitaan, please do me a favor. Bruk um rass up so a layman like me can understand.Me legalistically challenged, yuh know.

 

FM
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:

Were I the AG, I'd be hard at work creating "facts" in this election that can be used to obtain a writ from the High Court inclusive of a Conservatory Order.

 

This 1997 case is instructive because Justice Singh's ruling still left the door open to a Conservatory Order which will seek to maintain rather than alter the "status quo." The PNC lost this segment of the argument because they sought to alter the status quo which in the Anglo-Commonwealth tradition requires a heightened standard of inquiry and burden on the movant of the motion.

Attorney Shaitaan, please do me a favor. Bruk um rass up so a layman like me can understand.Me legalistically challenged, yuh know.

 

 

My apologies bro. I did not intend to be unclear and throw legal nonsense

 

Basically what I'm saying is that the AG can cause errors (which may seem "harmless" or may not even be noticed at all) to be committed in the course of this Election.

 

Then based on that he can litigate in the High Court to nullify the election and further rely on the precedent set by Justice Singh in the 2001 ruling.

 

Justice Singh's ruling was only bad for the PNC in that she was being asked to "mandate" a new government (as in change the status quo) and not "conserve" the status quo as in keep the staus quo in place. Keeping the status quo in place in 2015 would be ordering the PPP to stay in office and ordering fresh elections.

 

In law, it is far easier to "conserve" the present circumstances by court order than to "mandate" a change of circumstances. You may be familiar with injunctions. An injunction which orders people to do nothing, alter nothing is easier to argue for as it maintains the status quo. An injunction which orders people to do something and alter the state of things at they currently exist is a harder injunction to get because it alters the status quo, usually to the benefit or detriment of one party.

FM
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:

Were I the AG, I'd be hard at work creating "facts" in this election that can be used to obtain a writ from the High Court inclusive of a Conservatory Order.

 

This 1997 case is instructive because Justice Singh's ruling still left the door open to a Conservatory Order which will seek to maintain rather than alter the "status quo." The PNC lost this segment of the argument because they sought to alter the status quo which in the Anglo-Commonwealth tradition requires a heightened standard of inquiry and burden on the movant of the motion.

Attorney Shaitaan, please do me a favor. Bruk um rass up so a layman like me can understand.Me legalistically challenged, yuh know.

 

 

My apologies bro. I did not intend to be unclear and throw legal nonsense

 

Basically what I'm saying is that the AG can cause errors (which may seem "harmless" or may not even be noticed at all) to be committed in the course of this Election.

 

Then based on that he can litigate in the High Court to nullify the election and further rely on the precedent set by Justice Singh in the 2001 ruling.

 

Justice Singh's ruling was only bad for the PNC in that she was being asked to "mandate" a new government (as in change the status quo) and not "conserve" the status quo as in keep the staus quo in place. Keeping the status quo in place in 2015 would be ordering the PPP to stay in office and ordering fresh elections.

 

In law, it is far easier to "conserve" the present circumstances by court order than to "mandate" a change of circumstances. You may be familiar with injunctions. An injunction which orders people to do nothing, alter nothing is easier to argue for as it maintains the status quo. An injunction which orders people to do something and alter the state of things at they currently exist is a harder injunction to get because it alters the status quo, usually to the benefit or detriment of one party.

Thank you very much, Counsel. I can absorb this.

FM
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:

Were I the AG, I'd be hard at work creating "facts" in this election that can be used to obtain a writ from the High Court inclusive of a Conservatory Order.

 

This 1997 case is instructive because Justice Singh's ruling still left the door open to a Conservatory Order which will seek to maintain rather than alter the "status quo." The PNC lost this segment of the argument because they sought to alter the status quo which in the Anglo-Commonwealth tradition requires a heightened standard of inquiry and burden on the movant of the motion.

Attorney Shaitaan, please do me a favor. Bruk um rass up so a layman like me can understand.Me legalistically challenged, yuh know.

 

 

My apologies bro. I did not intend to be unclear and throw legal nonsense

 

Basically what I'm saying is that the AG can cause errors (which may seem "harmless" or may not even be noticed at all) to be committed in the course of this Election.

 

Then based on that he can litigate in the High Court to nullify the election and further rely on the precedent set by Justice Singh in the 2001 ruling.

 

Justice Singh's ruling was only bad for the PNC in that she was being asked to "mandate" a new government (as in change the status quo) and not "conserve" the status quo as in keep the staus quo in place. Keeping the status quo in place in 2015 would be ordering the PPP to stay in office and ordering fresh elections.

 

In law, it is far easier to "conserve" the present circumstances by court order than to "mandate" a change of circumstances. You may be familiar with injunctions. An injunction which orders people to do nothing, alter nothing is easier to argue for as it maintains the status quo. An injunction which orders people to do something and alter the state of things at they currently exist is a harder injunction to get because it alters the status quo, usually to the benefit or detriment of one party.

Thank you very much, Counsel. I can absorb this.

 

Happy to add my two shillings when useful. If you really wanna be mischievous, one can even grasp at the argument that these elections were not properly called as Parliament was never dissolved properly and thus the Government is not even under a current legal mandate to call fresh elections until next year as per usual.

 

The only problems with such an overt attempt at undermining elections is how Western nations would respond, how peaceful the PNC would be about it all, and how well the PPP can control the security apparatus of the State.

 

Another legal straw that can be spun into PPP gold is the potential collateral damage that can be inflicted by Richardson's term limits motion on the May 11th Election. If successful, it implicates the Nominations process as being flawed as it unlawfully excluded Jagdeo

 

In law, the difference between a stupid argument and successful stupid argument is a sympathetic judge. The PPP has plenty of sympathetic and pliant judges. I've seen some good solid arguments lose out to ridiculous nonsensical arguments before a sympathetic and biased judge.

 

I'm not saying the PPP will avail themselves of these options. I'm just saying these options exist and the PPP is in such a pickle that they will do anything to avoid losing office.

 

Remember in 1997, Janet Jagan was smart enough to throw a writ over her shoulders. That was not some off chance act of bravado. That was a calculated legal move because once the oath was taken in the manner prescribed, not even God had jurisdiction over her anymore.

FM
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member

Dude,

 

Your style of political discourse is just awful. Make a sensible reasoned argument rather than run to the latrine all the time. Sometimes a well delivered vulgar remark can be funny and can move the discussion along. However, you seem to be vulgar just for vulgarity's own sake.

 

If I was a strong Coalition supporter, I'd be worried about all the anti-PPP people you're probably turning away.

 

As to the point of this thread, it was an exercise in examining what is available to the PPP not what they are likely to do. I don't own a crystal ball nor am I a participant in their councils of war.

FM
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
caincainTired old hippie
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Happy to add my two shillings when useful. If you really wanna be mischievous, one can even grasp at the argument that these elections were not properly called as Parliament was never dissolved properly and thus the Government is not even under a current legal mandate to call fresh elections until next year as per usual.

 

The only problems with such an overt attempt at undermining elections is how Western nations would respond, how peaceful the PNC would be about it all, and how well the PPP can control the security apparatus of the State.

 

Another legal straw that can be spun into PPP gold is the potential collateral damage that can be inflicted by Richardson's term limits motion on the May 11th Election. If successful, it implicates the Nominations process as being flawed as it unlawfully excluded Jagdeo

 

In law, the difference between a stupid argument and successful stupid argument is a sympathetic judge. The PPP has plenty of sympathetic and pliant judges. I've seen some good solid arguments lose out to ridiculous nonsensical arguments before a sympathetic and biased judge.

 

I'm not saying the PPP will avail themselves of these options. I'm just saying these options exist and the PPP is in such a pickle that they will do anything to avoid losing office.

 

Remember in 1997, Janet Jagan was smart enough to throw a writ over her shoulders. That was not some off chance act of bravado. That was a calculated legal move because once the oath was taken in the manner prescribed, not even God had jurisdiction over her anymore.

Look, the PPP has done nothing legally, there is no way in hell they gonna try any legal shit at this point of the game, They try that shit and this time they should be thrown out bodily.

cain
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:

Dude,

 

Your style of political discourse is just awful. Make a sensible reasoned argument rather than run to the latrine all the time. Sometimes a well delivered vulgar remark can be funny and can move the discussion along. However, you seem to be vulgar just for vulgarity's own sake.

 

If I was a strong Coalition supporter, I'd be worried about all the anti-PPP people you're probably turning away.

 

As to the point of this thread, it was an exercise in examining what is available to the PPP not what they are likely to do. I don't own a crystal ball nor am I a participant in their councils of war.

You sound like me talking to you 6 years ago and like you he will not listen because as you said then, it works.

FM
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:

Dude,

 

Your style of political discourse is just awful. Make a sensible reasoned argument rather than run to the latrine all the time. Sometimes a well delivered vulgar remark can be funny and can move the discussion along. However, you seem to be vulgar just for vulgarity's own sake.

 

If I was a strong Coalition supporter, I'd be worried about all the anti-PPP people you're probably turning away.

 

As to the point of this thread, it was an exercise in examining what is available to the PPP not what they are likely to do. I don't own a crystal ball nor am I a participant in their councils of war.

You sound like me talking to you 6 years ago and like you he will not listen because as you said then, it works.

 

Thank you Oh Great and Mighty Cacique with 1/3 Scottish Blood. Where would I ever be without your words of wisdom?

 

There's a difference between someone having not yet reached 20 and someone in their 50s.

 

I doubt I was ever vulgar all the time or just vulgar for vulgarity's sake. Perhaps I was but I'll still cling to intemperate youth for context. And if I recall correctly you were quite the staunch PPPite. But I guess you've "evolved."

 

We all can't be born as wise and sagacious as the Great and Mighty Cacique. Some of us "stranded indentureds"/Bihari dalits must grow and mature like other mere mortals.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:

Dude,

 

Your style of political discourse is just awful. Make a sensible reasoned argument rather than run to the latrine all the time. Sometimes a well delivered vulgar remark can be funny and can move the discussion along. However, you seem to be vulgar just for vulgarity's own sake.

 

If I was a strong Coalition supporter, I'd be worried about all the anti-PPP people you're probably turning away.

 

As to the point of this thread, it was an exercise in examining what is available to the PPP not what they are likely to do. I don't own a crystal ball nor am I a participant in their councils of war.

You sound like me talking to you 6 years ago and like you he will not listen because as you said then, it works.

 

Thank you Oh Great and Mighty Cacique with 1/3 Scottish Blood. Where would I ever be without your words of wisdom?

 

There's a difference between someone having not yet reached 20 and someone in their 50s.

 

I doubt I was ever vulgar all the time or just vulgar for vulgarity's sake. Perhaps I was but I'll still cling to intemperate youth for context. And if I recall correctly you were quite the staunch PPPite. But I guess you've "evolved."

 

We all can't be born as wise and sagacious as the Great and Mighty Cacique. Some of us "stranded indentureds"/Bihari dalits must grow and mature like other mere mortals.

I will say with apt modesty, were it believable, that you have learnt. I am reserving that pending another five years of growth.

FM
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:

Dude,

 

Your style of political discourse is just awful. Make a sensible reasoned argument rather than run to the latrine all the time. Sometimes a well delivered vulgar remark can be funny and can move the discussion along. However, you seem to be vulgar just for vulgarity's own sake.

 

If I was a strong Coalition supporter, I'd be worried about all the anti-PPP people you're probably turning away.

 

As to the point of this thread, it was an exercise in examining what is available to the PPP not what they are likely to do. I don't own a crystal ball nor am I a participant in their councils of war.

 

Shaites....

this is Exactly what I said

Nothing more ....nothing less...

 

So we are to believe

Dharpoke Nandalall

will or can keep the PPP in Power

beyond May 11th 2015....

What is wrong with this ...

Because there is

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING....

 

ANIL NANDALALL CAN DO

 

TO KEEP PPP IN POWER

BEYOND MAY 11th 2015

 

 

 

Seems like Dhar Poke

is More Powerful than the

American Govt &

The ABC Countries...

 

Who on God's Earth believe

the American, British & Canadian Govt

will not Protect their Interest in Guyana...

 

and will just sit back and do nothing

 

 allowing Dharpoke or PPP to refuse

to obey the Results of the elections

 

If Dharpoke say so....

He Still Talking Piss

Are we doubting Anil Nandalall

Love to talk Piss...

Moses Trying to put it nicely....

 calling the piss he talking.......

"Carelessness"

 

 

 

 

Maybe...

some stale pee still in his mouth

from when Ramson give piss pun he.

 

What are we Doubting

(1) In the Fight at the Everest Club

Ramson did not knockout Nandalall????

 

(2) Ramson did not Piss in his Mouth????

 

(3) He did not Swallow

every Drop of Ramson's Piss????

 

Shaitan.....

what you want me to Change

to make Dhar Poke Look good?

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ

Add Reply

Views: 416

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Welcome to the Original Guyanese Discussion Forums, first established in 1996. Here you can discuss, ask questions or generally debate anything related to politics, movies, music, health or just gyaff away your day/night here. A note of warning, the Political forum is not for the faint of heart.  We do have some rules, so please adhere to them .
 
Privacy Statement - Rules

 
 

 

×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×

Access to this requires a premium membership.

GNI VIP Member

Welcome to the Original Guyanese Discussion Forums, first established in 1996. Here you can discuss, ask questions or generally debate anything related to politics, movies, music, health or just gyaff away your day/night here.

Please note while you do have free access to our Forums, the Political Forum will now be a Paid Membership Forum. What does this mean? To write in the Political Forum you must be a paying member. The fee is $25.00 US per year and is non refundable. Payment can be done through PayPal.
Membership is not automatically renewed and you can cancel anytime
We do have some rules, so please adhere to them.
$25.00 per 12 Months (plus tax if applicable)
×