Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang is yet to hand down a ruling on the summons to quash, filed by Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield challenging the Elections Petition that was filed by People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Executive Member Ganga Persaud.

In the petition, which was filed on June 24, the PPP/C member is asking the court to grant a number of orders including the nullification of the May 11 General and Regional Election, as well as an order for new elections to be held. The Election Petition named the Chief Elections Officer and the representatives of the List of Candidates for all eight parties that contested the General and Regional Elections, as the defendants.

However, Lowenfield counter-filed legal actions, claiming in the summons that the petition does not have sufficient facts to support the claims being made. At an earlier sitting, Attorney Anil Nandlall, representing Persaud, had pointed out that he has presented all the necessary information required in the petition.

These include facts on the rejected ballots and refusal of the Returning Officer to grant a final general count, among others. “The petition itself is 13 pages long, it details some 28 odd grounds and the reliefs, which it seeks, are the Statutory Reliefs which are to be sought in any Elections Petition based upon any given facts. So we could not have pleaded anymore than what we have pleaded… Each one of the grounds that were alleged, there are sufficient facts pleaded in support,” Nandlall had told reporters.

Persaud has since retained Jamaican attorney Abraham Dabdoub, to represent him in the case and on the last occasion in November, Dabdoub submitted arguments in response to the claims outlined by Forde.

After hearing arguments from the two parties, Justice Chang adjourned the matter, indicating that a ruling would be handed down on the next hearing. His office was supposed to send out notices, informing the parties involved of the date for decision on whether he will uphold summons or not. However, no such notice has been received by any of the parties.

On the other hand, another defendant/respondent named on the Election Petition, the representative for the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) List of Candidate Professor Harold Lutchman, had also filed a summons in which he is seeking “further and better particulars” from the Election Petition.

The delay in the hearing and determination of the summonses will impact the substantive Elections Petition case by delaying it. However, should Justice Chang uphold any or both of the summonses on the grounds proffered, he can strike out the petition.

Prior to the filing of the petition, Persaud was required to file an ex-parte application, seeking permission from the court to file the actual Election Petition. The matter was heard before the acting Chief Justice, who granted leave for the petition to be filed.

Some of the grounds laid out in the Election Petition includes valid ballots being wrongly deemed rejected, Statements of Poll (SOP) used to ascertain the results contain arithmetic errors, multiple voting by persons and impersonation of persons, PPP/C ballot attendants and polling agents being prevented from accompanying the ballot boxes, and the fact that there were fraudulently concocted SOPs.