Is the CCJ addressing the "more votes issue" or whether the CoA had the authority to address article 177 which states:
ARTICLE 177 of the Constitution makes provision for the election of a President of Guyana?

@Former Member posted:

Is the CCJ addressing the "more votes issue" or whether the CoA had the authority to address article 177 which states:
ARTICLE 177 of the Constitution makes provision for the election of a President of Guyana?

That's correct ,one of the reasons any issue are addressed by the Court of Appeal ,which is final .

The President is the Head of State ,figure out the rest.

@Django posted:

That's correct ,one of the reasons any issue are addressed by the Court of Appeal ,which is final .

The President is the Head of State ,figure out the rest.

The election is not over. No president was declared because of Mingo and Lolofeel. Maybe they should address the refusal of Lucifer to demit office.

@Former Member posted:

The election is not over. No president was declared because of Mingo and Lolofeel. Maybe they should address the refusal of Lucifer to demit office.

You are missing out on lots of stuff.

In the Eusi Kawana Case, Forbes Burnham wasn't declared as President, some old Guyanese Lawyers knows about the case ,just brushing it aside.

@Ramakant-P posted:

Caribbean Court of Justice. The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) settles disputes between Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Member States, and also serves as the highest court of appeals on civil and criminal matters for the national courts of Barbados, Belize and Guyana.

3 hours ago

 

 They have Jurisdiction.

Attention should be paid to a Head of State.

@Django posted:

Attention should be paid to a Head of State.

It is obvious that the 'Head of State' calls the shots.   

@Rochelle posted:

CCJ Winston Anderson stated:

"...we are not quite clear what happened in the COA, and if parties wish to indicate that there has been a contravention by the Order of the COA, perhaps this is not the appropriate forum for that"

CCJ Saunders stated:

"..but we certainly did not intend in these proceedings to embark on the substantive issues. We stress as we did earlier, the status quo on the ground must remain as it is."

Do you understand what the latter means? It means that any parties can submit their arguments with relation to the CEO report, but do note that the CCJ isn't the appropriate forum to argue on those issues.

Please carry on.

CCJ will no debate on whether the CEO's actions are wrong, correct, etc..

CCJ will indeed discuss the constitutional matters plus those related to the issues on hand.

Once the CCJ has made its decision on the issues, relevant parties need to heed said decisions.

Of course, the CCJ is the final step in the process.

This is what it's all about, quite clear that the two judges were bought by Jango friends.

Where did the word credible go.

https://newsroom.gy/2020/06/26...tqVAXFWsu2ogWcZnCjdw

@Abu Jihad posted:

This is what it's all about, quite clear that the two judges were bought by Jango friends.

Can you quit the nonsense,that's the thoughts of the Mani Group.