Court hears arguments on summons  asking for petition to quash

Election petition to nullify election results…

The election petition filed by Executive Member of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Ganga

Chief Justice Ian Chang sharing a light moment with Attorneys Anil Nandlall and Roysdale Forde after the hour-long hearing in Chambers on the election petition case

Persaud, was heard on Tuesday during which the parties involved argued on whether or not the petition has sufficient facts to engage the court’s attention. Tuesday’s session saw the commencement of arguments on a summons filed on behalf of Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield. The petition has named Lowenfield as one of the defendants along with the representatives of the Lists of Candidates for all the parties that contested the 2015 General and Regional Elections on May 11. In the petition, the PPP/C member is asking the court to grant a number of orders including the nullification of the May 11 Election results, as well as an order for new elections to be held, among several other requests. Since the petition was filed on June 24 at the High Court in Georgetown, several summonses were counter-filed asking the court to dismiss the petition on several grounds. In addition to the CEO, Attorney General Basil Williams and Professor Harold Lutchman, who presented the A Partnership for National Unity+Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) coalition’s list, have also filed summonses with the court. The PPP/C has also filed a summons, asking the court to order the CEO to provide certain information as it relates to the election results. Chief Justice Ian Chang has opted to commence hearings on the Summon filed by the CEO. Lowenfield had filed the court action challenging the proceedings filed by Persaud, stating that the petition does not have sufficient facts to support the claims made. During the hearing on Tuesday, Chief Justice Ian Chang heard arguments from lawyers representing Lowenfield as well as Persaud in Chambers. Following the hour-long session, Attorney Roycedale Forde who is representing Lowenfield, told reporters he argued in court that the material facts that are missing are an essential requirement for a legal proceeding of this nature. “Today we started arguments on whether (the petition) has (all the material facts) or not… Our position is that failure to file certain types of material in the election petition would render it bad. So the Chief Justice, logically, has decided that he must hear that first before hearing anything else,” Forde explained. Meanwhile, Persaud’s Attorney, Anil Nandlall, told reporters he counter-argued Forde’s position by disagreeing that there are not sufficient facts to support his clients’ case. “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 election petition based upon any given facts. So we could not have pleaded anymore than what we have pleaded but I suppose he (Attorney Forde) has to present arguments of some type,” the Attorney outlined. Moreover, Nandlall is confident the court is experienced enough to deal with the contentions brought up by Attorney Forde. He posited that he has presented all the necessary information required in the petition. “I can only plead facts based upon what actually transpired. You will see about rejected ballots, facts are pleaded in relation to that. In relation to the refusal of the Returning Officer to grant a final general count, facts are pleaded about that. The fact that many rejected ballots should not have been rejected, facts are pleaded about that. Each one of the grounds that were alleged, there are sufficient facts pleaded in support,” he affirmed. The matter was adjourned to next Monday, when the parties will continue with arguments on the summons filed by the Chief Elections Officer. While the Chief Justice continues to hear the summonses, this will impact the substantive election petition case by delaying it. However, should Justice Chang uphold any of the summonses on the grounds proffered, he can strike out the Petition.