APNU/AFC prolonging Guyanese misery with appeal
…as CJ throws out latest court challenge
…rules that Section 22 best addressed before elections court
The People’s National Congress (PNC)-led A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance for Change (APNU/AFC) seems to be on a never-ending journey to further prolong the declaration of the results for the March 2 General and Regional Elections.
![](https://guyanatimesgy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Granger-7-300x200.jpg)
The party’s Roysdale Forde – a candidate for these elections, has been spearheading all the legal challenges since March 2. He has been integral in the legal battles of Eslyn David, Ulita Moore and now Misenga Jones.
The cases are aimed at further compounding the electoral impasse and blocking the declaration of the results using the results obtained from a transparent and credible National Recount of the ballots. The National Recount shows that People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) won the March 2 polls with 233,336 votes cast in its favour while APNU/AFC secured 217,920 votes.
In the latest move to stall his party’s exit, Forde signalled their intention to appeal the Chief Justice’s ruling in the Misenga Jones v GECOM et al matter.
CJ (ag) Roxane George, on Monday, dismissed Jones’ application for judicial review since most, if not all, of the 28 reliefs she sought from the court were already litigated in previous matters brought by Forde in the cases of Moore and David.
![](https://guyanatimesgy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/harmon-2-300x188.jpg)
Last Friday, during the oral submissions, the CJ was asked to first determine whether the Court had the jurisdiction to hear Jones’ case as well as if Section 22 of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act, No 15 of 2000 is unconstitutional. It was this SECTION that gave birth to Order 60 of 2020 (the Recount Order).
Jurisdiction
On the issue of jurisdiction, Forde’s argument was led by Trinidadian Senior Counsel John Jeremie and they contended that Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission, Retired Justice Claudette Singh and the six politically-aligned Commissioners have not complied with their duties as outlined in Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution which speaks about the declaration of the elections. They, supported by Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield and Attorney General Basil Williams, contended that the Commission also did not adhere to Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act.
As a result, Jones sought to have Article 177 (2) (b) interpreted because, as submitted on her behalf, an impasse now exists between the Chairperson and the CEO as to which results are to be used in order to declare the election. In this regard, it is contended that the Chairperson is obliged to accept the report and advice of the CEO in relation to the declaration of the results.
It was submitted that this impasse must be resolved now, and cannot await an election petition.
![](https://guyanatimesgy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Moses-Nagamootoo-2-1-300x200.jpg)
In arguing the point of jurisdiction, it was placed before the court that “the court’s supervisory jurisdiction can be invoked to ensure the correct and smooth operation or progress of the elections proceedings or process.” This is provided for in Article 226 (7) of the Constitution which permits the court to enquire whether the Chairperson and GECOM are acting lawfully in the context of Jones’ case.
CJ George noted that it was also argued that the court has no jurisdiction and the issues raised speak to an election dispute which is best dealt with pursuant to Article 163 by the way of an election court via to an election petition. This was countered by arguments that the court has narrow jurisdiction.
Justice George stated that she is cognisant of the restrictions imposed on the court by Section 140 of the Representation of the People Act as well as by Article 163 of the Constitution which sets out the procedures for settling elections disputes. Nevertheless, she reasoned that in the peculiar context of this case, where there is an impasse regarding the decision-making of GECOM to complete the elections process and is necessary to advise the process which is still in progress, a judicial review is necessary to address this impasse.
![](https://guyanatimesgy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Virtual-ruling-300x156.jpg)