One of the two petitions filed by the main opposition APNU+AFC challenging the results of the March 2nd 2020 polls has been dismissed because its presidential candidate David Granger was not served on time but the other one will proceed and timelines were yesterday set for it.

Following a ruling in just over two hours yesterday afternoon, Acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire SC has also ordered that documents in possession of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) from the March 2nd, 2020 elections not be destroyed before the remaining petition is fully heard and determined.

Specifically, the Chief Justice has ordered that all Statements of Poll (SOPs) and Statements of Recount (SORs) be physically lodged with the Registrar of the Supreme Court for “safe keeping.”

Finding that former President Granger was a necessary party to both petitions, Chief Justice George-Wiltshire threw out the second petition lodged on behalf of the coalition because service was not effected on him within the statutory period.

The judge said that having found the first petition to have been served on Granger within the stipulated timeframe, that petition would be preserved and therefore heard.

Regarding the first petition, attorney Roysdale Forde who represents those petitioners has until February 12th to file and serve his submissions, and the respondents then have until March 5th to respond.

Any further responses are then to be filed by March 19th and the matter is returnable to court for April 7th.

Petitioners Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse in the second petition which had been described as the trial-petition—requiring witnesses and the leading of evidence, were contending that the elections were unlawfully conducted and/or that the results, (if lawfully conducted), were affected or might have been affected by unlawful acts or omissions. They nonetheless argue that from those polls it is Granger who should be declared the duly-elected President of Guyana.

They were seeking to have the court nullify the outcome and to declare President Irfaan Ali to be illegally holding office.

In the first petition, petitioners Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick want the court to determine among other things, questions regarding whether the elections have been lawfully conducted or whether the results have been, or may have been affected by any unlawful act or omission and in consequence thereof, whether the seats in the National Assembly have been lawfully allocated.

Dismissing the contention advanced by attorneys for petitioners—Thomas and Nurse, the Chief Justice said that there was compelling evidence to support the respondents’ argument that Granger was not served with the petition on time.

The judge said that both the affidavit of service and the return of service documents produced by these petitioners were inconsistent. She noted that while there was sufficient time within which the petitioners could have brought to the attention of the court what they described as a genuine mistake in recording the date of service, no effort was made to so do.

In fact, the judge pointed out that from the evidence, it was not until counsel for the respondents and the Attorney General raised the issue with the court that the errant petitioners at that point sought to make the case of a mistake.

Justice George-Wiltshire said that contrary to the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is not only the affidavit of service on which the court must rely for the date of service, but rather the return of service as well, and all supporting documents which form part of the whole.

On this point the judge made it clear that the petitioners could not simply approbate and reprobate by advancing evidence on which it relies, and then when confronted with weaknesses in that evidence say that it no longer relies on that evidence by attempting simply to explain it away, especially when the explanation itself cannot be substantiated as has been their plight.

The judge said the counsel for the petitioners “failed miserably” in trying to explain their “grave mistake” which is without merit.

The court noted that while the petition ought to have been statutorily served on Granger on or before September 21st, 2020; this was not done until September 25th, and that when the issue was raised by the respondents, the petitioners then said that Granger had actually been served on September 18th but that he had mistakenly recorded the date as September 25th.

The affidavit of service on which the petitioners wanted the court to rely had September 18th recorded. The return of service, however, was dated September 25th.

The judge pointed out that while indeed human errors are possible, the explanation proffered by the petitioners was not only farfetched, but highly improbable that Granger would have recorded a date so far into the future.

The petitioners’ explanation then that Granger had actually signed the document on September 24th but recorded a date later was still not countenanced by the court which pointed out that in any event, to have signed the document on September 24th was still out of the statutory period.

Referencing a plethora of case law authorities, the Chief Justice said that the timeframe for service of petitions is not only extremely important in election cases, but must be strictly complied with, as non-compliance can be fatal to the petition itself.

The judge noted, too, that the court has no jurisdiction to grant an extension of time where service is out-of-time.

Unlike the position of the petitioners in both petitions, the Chief Justice found that in accordance with case law precedent, Granger as the leader of the list of candidates for A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) is a necessary party to the proceedings.

Having found him to have been served within time in the first petition, however, the judge said that that petition can go forward.

She said that simply issuing a notice that he does not which to contest the petitions does not make him an unnecessary party. In fact, the court said that it is an acknowledgement of being a necessary party that one issues such a notice.

She said that in accordance with law, a person such as Granger who is the head of a list of candidates has, in the proceedings, at least an interest which conflicts with reliefs being sought by the petitioners and/or contentions of the petitioners and so it would be important for that person to be heard, thus making them a necessary party; and more so since the interest of everyone on that list may be affected also.

Following her ruling, the Chief Justice granted a request made by attorney Kashir Khan who represents the Citizenship Initiative—one of the dozen respondents in the petition, for all documents concerning the elections to be preserved.

Khan said that while the statutory period for the destruction of such material looms, it would be prudent that they be preserved given that the petition is still to be heard. He had asked for the court to take possession of all the relevant documents.

While the judge made the order, she had said that the court would not take physical possession of the documents since they were voluminous and the court hadn’t the physical storage facilities to accommodate the documents.

Khan, however, asked the court to take possession of the SOPs and SORs as together they would not be too onerous on the court to find facilities to store them as opposed to having to store all the election documents.

The judge acceded to Khan’s request.

The results of a national recount of all ballots cast showed that it was the PPP/C which had won the elections with 233,336 votes over the 217,920 which the coalition managed to secure.

Arguing on behalf of the petitioners in both matters, Trinidadian senior counsel John Jeremie had previously advanced that contrary to arguments made by the attorney general and attorney for PPP/C General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo—respondents in the matters, service of the petition was effected within time and so the petitions should not be dismissed.

He had contended, too, that Granger was not a necessary party to the petitions and so they cannot be thrown out even if service was effected on him out of time—though Jeremie’s contention was that Granger was served on time.

Jagdeo’s lawyer Douglas Mendes SC of Trinidad had, however, argued that because the second petition was served late on Granger whom he contended was a key party to the proceedings in both matters, both petitions ought to be thrown out.

Jeremie had sought to argue that Granger was served within the prescribed time while crediting what he described as the “confusion” with the date of service to clerical errors and had urged the court to rely on the affidavit of service on which he said the correct dates had been annotated as the evidence of service, and not the return of service document.

Mendes’ argument had been, however, that because Granger was a necessary party to the two petitions late service of the requisite documents on him was fatal to both petitions and they must therefore be thrown out.

Attorney Basil Williams SC who represents Granger had, however, refuted that his client was key to the proceedings and had stated further that they would abide by whatever ruling the court makes.

Posted for recap on the the two petitions.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Didn't I say that the petition will be thrown out?

The PNC lawyers are dummies.  They were well paid so they feign ignorance.  Sorry Django, you lose. 

To all those anti PPPites: there isn't going to be another election until 2025.

Now the PPP/C can concentrate on fulfilling their election promises.

Onward Guyana! Let's go!

@Django posted:

Chief Justice dismisses APNU+AFC elections petition

Chief Justice (acting) Roxane George delivering her decision today.

April 26, 2021

Source

This story is developing and will be updated.

Chief Justice (acting) Roxane George today threw out a petition brought by APNU+AFC challenging the results of the March 2nd 2020 general elections.

She found that the recount order and section 22 of the election laws act did not contravene the constitution.

Buudoop boop baadang bang ...

Another one for the PNCR/APNU/AFC group.

@Ramakant-P posted:

Ha! Ha! Ha! Didn't I say that the petition will be thrown out?

The PNC lawyers are dummies.  They were well paid so they feign ignorance.  Sorry Django, you lose.

To all those anti PPPites: there isn't going to be another election until 2025.

Now the PPP/C can concentrate on fulfilling their election promises.

Onward Guyana! Let's go!

How you arrived at the conclusion ?

Both Petitions are appealed.

The funny thing GECOM have the power create Laws to remove election difficulties, yet they don't have the power to resolve election irregularities. They need to get the Laws correctly ,Burnham Constitution comes in handy for the political parties in Guyana ,especially the one located at Robb St.

Somebody should remind APNU that they lost the election in 2020. You lose then, you lose now and forever. Get off the streets and do something for the people.

We will protest! Can't get off any damn streets until we do something for we, the people! Some loot will calm us down! Until the next opportunity!

@Viper posted:

Somebody should remind APNU that they lost the election in 2020. You lose then, you lose now and forever. Get off the streets and do something for the people.

Now and forever, huh? The PPP won't miss this chance for becoming richer than the coalition never dreamed! Corruption will raise its head again! All the coalition has to do is watch them carefully and bring their corruption to public notice. Jaan Public waant fuh teef two, ar why yuh tink dey elek ah smaartur teef maan! Already the sugar workers are becoming dissatisfied! Gotta bribe them with ile money! Others will grumble about being left out! Can't please everybody or there won't be anything left for the pleasers! Bide your time, Joe! Yuh gun get fuh teef, two!

Pore ol' Guyana!

CJ throws out remaining Election Petition case

says GECOM acted in accordance to law

Apr 26, 2021 News, https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...ction-petition-case/

Chief Justice (Ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire, S.C.

Chief Justice (Ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire, S.C., has thrown out the only remaining election petition case filed on behalf of the APNU+AFC party to challenge the legality of the March 2, 2020 Regional and General Elections.

Justice George-Wiltshire dismissed the case ruling inter alia that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) acted in full compliance with the Constitution of Guyana and electoral laws in its conduct of elections.

The case, filed under the name Petition #88, by petitioners Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick sought to challenge Section 22 of the Election Laws Amendment Act (ELAA) and Order #60 of 2020 which is the recount order created based on Article 162 of the Constitution on the grounds that they were unconstitutional and resulted in breaches and violations by GECOM with its conduct of the elections.

The parties have argued that the results of the elections were to be deemed invalid due to serious non-compliance with the Constitution of Guyana and electoral laws as regards the holding of the elections.

However, in her ruling, the Chief Justice (Ag) noted that neither Section 22 of the ELAA nor Order #60 is outside the realm of the Constitution.  Justice George-Wiltshire held that the intent of Order #60 was to resolve irregularities, discrepancies, and anomalies occurring in the elections process and to determine a final credible count.

She noted that Section 22 is meant as an aid to the process to permit a determination of a result. It does not permit usurpation of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 163 [of the Constitution] at all.

“Section 22 provides the parameters for its efficacy, and the power granted therein is not arbitrary. It includes sufficient mechanisms to establish that Parliament did not surrender or abdicate its powers. Thus, I hold that there was a lawful delegation of power as provided for in Section 22 so that GECOM could independently and properly control the election process…” the CJ added.

However, in her ruling, the Chief Justice (Ag) noted that neither Section 22 of the ELAA nor Order #60 is outside the realm of the Constitution.  Justice George-Wiltshire held that the intent of Order #60 was to resolve irregularities, discrepancies, and anomalies occurring in the elections process and to determine a final credible count.

The question that is lingering ,was the 2020  Elections Declaration a final credible count ,with all the anomalies and irregularities found when the ballot boxes  was opened for the re-count.

April 26, 2021

Source

…CJ says coalition election petition lacks evidence
…rules Section 22, Order 60 legit

By Svetlana Marshall

Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George Monday, dismissed the APNU/AFC Election Petition and ruled that there is nothing unconstitutional about Section 22 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act and Order 60 (Recount Order), which were relied upon by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to facilitate a national recount of the votes cast at the March, 2020 General and Regional Elections.

The court decision has dealt another blow to the coalition’s efforts to overturn the declared results of the March 2, 2020 polls that was plagued with discrepancies based on the evidence unearthed during the national recount.

Notwithstanding, the coalition has signaled their intention to appeal the ruling even as it criticises the ruling.

“My analysis of the authorities cited has led me to the ineluctable conclusion that Section 22 is not ultra vires the Constitution and I so hold. There has been no violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers. Section 22 is meant as an aid to the process, so as to permit a determination of a result,” Chief Justice (ag) George said has she handed down the ruling on Monday.

It was based on data coming out of the national recount that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) was declared winner of the 2020 Elections, and Irfaan Ali the Executive President of Guyana.

For the Petitioners – Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick – the Constitution did not confer power on the Elections Commission to conduct a National Recount and or set aside the declarations made by the Returning Officers, but the Chief Justice (ag) said GECOM did not usurp the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 163 when it relied on Section 22 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act to bring the Recount Order into effect.

The Chief Justice (ag) said while Article 162 (1) B gives GECOM wide ranging powers to facilitate a fair and credible election, Section 22 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act allows for the removal of any difficulty that may arise during the course of an election. She said that it is an undisputed fact that there were difficulties during the 2020 Elections, and it was on that basis that GECOM relied on Section 22 to facilitate the National Recount with the primary aim of resolving the difficulties.

“I have concluded that Section 22 is an implementing provision to operationalise Article 162, so that GECOM could exercise its functions in the management of an election process. This is to say, Section 22 buttresses Article 162 (1) (b) and provides a framework for the implementation of this sub-article. It therefore falls within the four corners of this provision of the Constitution,” Chief Justice (ag) George ruled.

Similarly, the Chief Justice (ag) ruled that Order 60 did not breach the Constitution. Further, she ruled that the Recount Order did not amendment the Representation of the Peoples Act but rather modified it to provide a mechanism to facilitate the recount by expanding the recount provisions in the Representation of the Peoples Act.

“It simply set out a procedure for the recount of ballots, a power that GECOM possesses under the provisions of the RPA,” the acting Chief Justice emphasised, while noting that if an officer of GECOM goes rogue during the conduct of an election and fails to adhere to the provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act, it cannot be that GECOM must accept the results the officer provides and await the outcome of an election petition.

“Given the difficulties it does appear that it would not have been prudent for GECOM to declare the results in the peculiar circumstances,” the Chief Justice (ag) said, noting that GECOM could not have been expected to act on advice known to be unlawful or lacking in legitimacy.

“Thus I have concluded that Order 60 is not ultra vires the Constitution or Section 22. A combination of Article 162 (1) (b) and Section 22 confer the power on GECOM to issue this order, if GECOM considered it necessary or expedient to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance on the part of persons exercising powers and performing duties on its behalf as regards elections process and the declaration of the election,” the Chief Justice (ag) ruled.

Further, she ruled that the petitioners, through their attorneys, failed to provide evidence that GECOM did not abide by Order 60 when it declared the results of the elections on August 2, 2020.

The petitioners were represented by a battery of lawyers led by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and John Jeremie while the Elections Commission was represented by Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan, who had asked the court to dismiss the petition. Leader of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), Bharrat Jagdeo, the Fourth Named Respondent, was represented by Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes. The Attorney General Anil Nandlall, who had also opposed the petition, was also a party to the case.

@Django posted:

How you arrived at the conclusion ?

Both Petitions are appealed.

The funny thing GECOM have the power create Laws to remove election difficulties, yet they don't have the power to resolve election irregularities. They need to get the Laws correctly ,Burnham Constitution comes in handy for the political parties in Guyana ,especially the one located at Robb St.

Well duh.. Burnham constitution was invoked on several occasions...did you ever condemn their conduct? Hell no! you just conveniently looked the other way when the bogus declarations Mingo and Lolobai disenfranchised a third of the voters to give the coalition the victory. You are just mad because it didn’t work this time around..

@sachin_05 posted:

Well duh.. Burnham constitution was invoked on several occasions...did you ever condemn their conduct? Hell no! you just conveniently looked the other way when the bogus declarations Mingo and Lolobai disenfranchised a third of the voters to give the coalition the victory. You are just mad because it didn’t work this time around..

The focus is on Mingo and Lowenfield ,the discovery of anomalies and irregularities during the re-count are swept under the rug .Did GECOM followed thru with Order 60 ? Mad !!! got to be out of your mind ,there should be fairness ,well that's only for one side of the fence.  You should follow the time line since the 1980 Constitution was forced on the people ,which political party are the optimum abuser.

@Django posted:

The focus is on Mingo and Lowenfield ,the discovery of anomalies and irregularities during the re-count are swept under the rug .Did GECOM followed thru with Order 60 ? Mad !!! got to be out of your mind ,there should be fairness ,well that's only for one side of the fence.  You should follow the time line since the 1980 Constitution was forced on the people ,which political party are the optimum abuser.

Until a court of law ruled that your allegations of anomalies and irregularities has merit, they remained just that...allegations. You need to come to the realization that with social media, like police harassment in the US, PNC rigging will be televised and condemned world wide, the days of rigged elections are over...

@sachin_05 posted:

Until a court of law ruled that your allegations of anomalies and irregularities has merit, they are remained just that...allegations. You need to come to the realization that with social media, like police harassment in the US, PNC rigging will be televised and condemned world wide, the days of rigged elections are over...

Turning a blind eye to crookedness ,perhaps it's ok for Ratman to commit such acts. Court of law not needed to decipher that ,Guyana Court of Law is corrupted.When will that be over in Guyana ? Ratman party objected for a clean voters list thru house to house registration ,all the foreign observers are saying the voters list is bloated doesn't reflect the population of the country and need to be sanitized ,read the reports instead of being a follower.

Now that the court has thrown out the petition, Django is saying that the Guyana court of law is corrupt. Before the verdict, he was saying that the election will be overturned with confidence.  It's a bad thing when one does not know the law but profess to do so.

@sachin_05 posted:

Until a court of law ruled that your allegations of anomalies and irregularities has merit, they remained just that...allegations. You need to come to the realization that with social media, like police harassment in the US, PNC rigging will be televised and condemned world wide, the days of rigged elections are over...

Use of GPF and GDF, too?

@Ramakant-P posted:

Now that the court has thrown out the petition, Django is saying that the Guyana court of law is corrupt. Before the verdict, he was saying that the election will be overturned with confidence.  It's a bad thing when one does not know the law but profess to do so.

It's even worse when you pretend to be fair!

I wonder what the CJ intends to do with those documents she wants! Can't substitute for a bloodclaath!

@Ramakant-P posted:

Now that the court has thrown out the petition, Django is saying that the Guyana court of law is corrupt.

Before the verdict, he was saying that the election will be overturned with confidence.

It's a bad thing when one does not know the law but profess to do so.

Corrupt Countries have Corrupt Courts.Making things up ,is that habitual ? what's difficult to know about LAW ? still having stone age mentality ?

Throwing out of Petition 88 ‘atrocious’; we will appeal – Harmon

See full statement from the Leader of the Opposition, Joseph Harmon following the Chief Justice (CJ)’s dismissal of Election Petition 88 today:

My fellow Guyanese today the Chief Justice has ruled against our petition No. 88 of 2020. Today democracy was stabbed in the heart in this fair land of ours. We must and will lodge an appeal against this atrocious decision of the High Court.

Many of you previously expressed doubt and concern that the court will rule in our favour, given the pattern of its ruling in election cases recently. We continued to advise that the judicial system will rule in accordance with law.

I have myself urged that if we do not have a court whose decisions are sound in law, fair in its application of justice and perceived as impartial by the society, that critical element which holds us together as a nation will lose its credibility.

Today, like you, I am disappointed and feel let down by our judiciary but I remain fortified that our hierarchy of courts will correct this clear injustice which has been wrought on the Guyanese people.

This is a clear attempt to protect the installed PPP regime from scrutiny and from being removed from government where they have no right being.

The elections of March 2020 were flawed and fraudulent. The world knows this. The world has seen this. There was clear fraud. We saw that as plain as day when the boxes were opened.

Missing poll documents, dead people voting, people outside of Guyana recorded as voting, missing ballots, missing oaths of identity and a whole host of irregularities, discrepancies and wholesale fraud.

Today when we expected that the legal basis upon which the PPP regime was installed would have been swept away and the laws of Guyana being stringently and robustly upheld, we have been disappointed again by the decision of our courts.

This decision is not about justice, this is not about the people of Guyana, this is not about what is right, this is not about democracy, this is not about you. It is about protecting the status quo – no matter how corrupt that status quo is.

This struggle, since August last year, has been grueling and painful. We have suffered so much. So many of you have suffered so much since this installed PPP regime came into office eight months ago. Many of you have lost your jobs and livelihoods and the country has regressed and reversed into economic decline.

People are crying out everywhere. Prices are going up and people do not have money in their pockets. Hospitals do not have medication and crime is on the rise. These are dark days in our country but we must not give up.

I must take a moment to express my profuse thanks to our legal team and the many persons who supported them and toiled with them for days and nights to ensure that our case was well presented and airtight. I must single out our Mr. Roysdale Forde SC and John Jeremie QC. We owe them an immense debt of gratitude. Their case was solid but the system ruled against them as it ruled against us.

Comrades, I must especially thank you for your perseverance, your resilience, your confidence and your wherewithal. This is not the end.

We must appeal this at every level until justice is delivered to us.

We must keep hope alive, we must continue to fight. We must continue to work to remove the installed PPP regime.

Through it all you have been resilient and I salute you. We must continue to be resilient and stand firm against injustice. We fight against principalities and powers but our struggle is just and righteous and the struggle must continue. Today is a dark and ominous day for democracy in Guyana. The ruling of the court must strike fear in the hearts of all democracy-loving people in Guyana, in the Caribbean and across the world.

We have continuously called on our people to keep the peace, to remain calm and to uphold the law.

Today however we have witnessed once again the judicial system failing our people. The APNU+AFC cannot and will not be held responsible for the reaction of the victimised, disenfranchised and marginalised masses. We will continue to fight and we wish to make it clear that all options remain open to us.

It was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who said that, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

I urge you, I plead with you to keep the faith. We shall overcome.

PPP accuses Harmon of attacking CJ, Judiciary and misleading supporters

See full release from the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) regarding the recent ruling by the Chief Justice, Roxane George relating to Elections Petition 88:

The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) welcomes the ruling handed down today in the Supreme Court by the Honorable Chief Justice, Roxanne George, which confirmed that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has the responsibility to independently supervise elections and can issue instructions and take actions as it deems necessary when matters relating to the conduct of the elections arise.

This in effect means that GECOM’s Order 60, which paved the way for the recount of the 2020 ballots, was constitutionally issued and therefore within its legal remit.

The ruling has vindicated the position of the PPP and almost all other political parties and civil society bodies in Guyana, as well as elections observers and the international community, that the machinations and obstructions of the APNU/AFC following the March 2020 polls, were purely meant to hijack the March 2020 elections which it lost fair and square, in a brazen attempt to derail Guyana’s hard-earned democracy, and retain power through back
door means.

The relentless efforts by the PNC led APNU/AFC opposition to destabilize the country following the conclusion of their five-month-long post-election shenanigans to fulfill its vulgar lust for power, was on full display again today, even after the ruling of the Chief Justice to dismiss the frivolous and baseless elections petition. The PPP vehemently condemns Harmon’s attack on the Chief Justice and the Judiciary and calls on all Guyanese to dismiss the opposition’s aggressive posturing as yet another rank attempt to remain relevant and to mislead its supporters.

We urge the law enforcement agencies to make every effort to maintain law and order. Particular focus should be placed on ensuring that the COVID-19 protocols are adhered to in light of the public health risk it poses.

@Django posted:

Corrupt Countries have Corrupt Courts.Making things up ,is that habitual ? what's difficult to know about LAW ? still having stone age mentality ?

I lost confidence in Courts ever since the US Supremes threw their weight in deciding the Gore vs. Bush election! Even more with my own experience with cowardly, racist judges here! The laws are. written in English to be interpreted by judges with their own biased, sophist agenda! Judges are people interested in their own necks, first!

Why should the CJ be any different? "I iz onlee a woemun!"

I'm waiting to hear the CJ on the documents she wants! So, until then...!

You all think that the black judge would have ruled in the PNC's favor.

hahahaha!

Harmon is going to appeal the CJ's decision? what a laff!

What are they hoping for the CJ will change her decision? They can appeal a thousand times, the decision will be the same.

No wonder they cannot run a cake shop much less a country.

@Ramakant-P posted:

You all think that the black judge would have ruled in the PNC's favor.

hahahaha!

Harmon is going to appeal the CJ's decision? what a laff!

What are they hoping for the CJ will change her decision? They can appeal a thousand times, the decision will be the same.

No wonder they cannot run a cake shop much less a country.

You crow too soon, fool! It's not daylight as yet! The CJ dealt with the arguments that had been presented to her! She has yet to deal with the documents she wanted! Why would she want those?

Maybe Hanuman is her monkey god, you kant!

The case is closed. The CJ made her decision. Harmon is showing contempt for the court and the Chief Justice. The documents wouldn't show any other thing besides what they already argue about and were rejected. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for being dumb.

@Ramakant-P posted:

The case is closed. The CJ made her decision. Harmon is showing contempt for the court and the Chief Justice. The documents wouldn't show any other thing besides what they already argue about and were rejected. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for being dumb.

And what, pray, is your excuse? Why does she want to see certain documents?

.

Maybe the CJ thinks the coalition lawyers had bungled their case and wants to have a look at the documents herself! These stupid men, she may be thinking, claim THEY know law? Hmpf! Why does she want certain pertinent documents and not all? After all, she ain't Indo and could be discriminated against, too! When is anyone going to make her CJ instead of Acting CJ?

@Former Member posted:

Maybe the CJ thinks the coalition lawyers had bungled their case and wants to have a look at the documents herself!

These stupid men, she may be thinking, claim THEY know law? Hmpf! Why does she want certain pertinent documents and not all? After all, she ain't Indo and could be discriminated against, too! When is anyone going to make her CJ instead of Acting CJ?

Petition 88 ,is about the powers of the Law given to GECOM .If it was used correctly for the conduct of elections.

CJ said there is no "evidence" what evidence is needed to interpret the LAW ?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence-legal/

I am not rubbing salt on open wounds, but I did say that both coalition petitions will get thrown out before. Didn't I? The coalition has a problem with maths, fairness, and telling the truth.

@Viper posted:

I am not rubbing salt on open wounds, but I did say that both coalition petitions will get thrown out before. Didn't I? The coalition has a problem with maths, fairness, and telling the truth.

U gave a problem with math too 😂😂

@Django posted:

Petition 88 ,is about the powers of the Law given to GECOM .If it was used correctly for the conduct of elections.

CJ said there is no "evidence" what evidence is needed to interpret the LAW ?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence-legal/

Yeah, yeah, yeah! How do I provide evidence of a familiar spirit or djinn's doings in my home when the Courts removed the laws on practicing witchcraft, which is what the use of familiar spirits is called in the Bible? As Shakespeare referred to in Hamlet 'there.are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio'! Stupid goyim (cattle of the Jews) know nothing! They have physical power which will overcome everything!

Except their colossal ignorance, of course!

Why do you think the Arabs couldn't win their wars with Zionist Israel? ALL their war plans were known in advance through the use of familiar spirits, not human spies! How do you think Rothschild became so rich?

@Viper posted:

I am not rubbing salt on open wounds, but I did say that both coalition petitions will get thrown out before. Didn't I? The coalition has a problem with maths, fairness, and telling the truth.

Survival knows no law!

Would you prefer civil war? The PPP has the superiority in voting numbers! APNU has the GPF and GDF!  Are you depending on International interference? THEY will own you! Their military has costs, you beggar! The PPP had better address the concerns of AfroGuyanese, not their selfish leaders, or Guyana will never become more than 'that shit hole country' !

The PNC had 38 years to address the concerns of the Afro_guyanese people. Why anyone would want to threaten the PPP with violence to address the concerns of the Afro_guyanese people? 

The GDF and GPF are loyal to the Government of the day. There isn't going to be a civil war because the PNC is not ruling.  Please note that the PPP/C is doing more for afros than Indos. For Afro_Guyanese life under the PPP is better than life under the PNC.

Over 12 Afro_guyanese were charged for misusing taxpayers' dollars.  You people want to protest, go ahead. Make my day.

Admin, please check how many logged in as Ramakant_P. The above post is not the real Ramakant's vernacular.

@Mitwah posted:

Admin, please check how many logged in as Ramakant_P. The above post is not the real Ramakant's vernacular.

Doesn't matter! Same stupidity!

@Ramakant-P posted:

The PNC had 38 years to address the concerns of the Afro_guyanese people. Why anyone would want to threaten the PPP with violence to address the concerns of the Afro_guyanese people?

The GDF and GPF are loyal to the Government of the day. There isn't going to be a civil war because the PNC is not ruling.  Please note that the PPP/C is doing more for afros than Indos. For Afro_Guyanese life under the PPP is better than life under the PNC.

Over 12 Afro_guyanese were charged for misusing taxpayers' dollars.  You people want to protest, go ahead. Make my day.

They had better look after AfroGuyanese interests, if they want a peaceful Guyana, Clint, or they WILL make your day! Nights, too!