Skip to main content

Django

Court of Appeal rules Monday , June 22,2020 , case seeking to block declaration of elections results.

Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ

Replies sorted oldest to newest

FM Former Member

Ruling in case seeking to block elections declaration set for Monday

, Source - https://www.inewsguyana.com/ru...tion-set-for-monday/

The Court of Appeal will be handing down its decision on the Notice of Motion filed by APNU/AFC supporter, Esyln David, who is seeking to block the Guyana Elections Commission from declaring the final results from the March 2 elections, on Monday.

This was announced today after the Appeal Court heard arguments from the various parties in the matter. The panel presiding over the case comprised of Appellate Judges, Justices Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud along with High Court judge, Justice Brassington Reynolds.

The Notice of Motion was filed on Thursday by David minutes before Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield was scheduled to present his final elections report to the GECOM Chair, Justice Claudette Singh at 13:00h the said day.

The submission of the report would have paved the way for the People’s Progressive Party/Civic to be declared the winner of the March 2 elections and Irfaan Ali to be sworn in as Guyana’s ninth Executive President. PPP/C secured 15,416 votes more than its main political rival, the caretaker APNU/AFC Coalition.

FM
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member

“APNU proxy” tells Appeal Court GECOM should use previous declarations that include Mingo’s figures to declare President

By Feona Morrison,  By Editor - 0  , Source - https://www.guyanastandard.com...o-declare-president/

The idea of a national recount of all ballots cast in the March 02, 2020 General and Regional elections came after the results for Region 4 were deemed non-credible by foreign and local observer groups and party agents. The Region’s Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo had come under harsh criticism for his declaration, which did not match the figures on the Statements of Poll in the possession of observers and party agents.

However, the Guyana Election Commission (GECOM) before embarking on the Recount exercise did not set aside the declarations made by Mingo, and the nine other Returning Officers. Instead, the electoral body said that the figures from these declarations are being “held in abeyance”, in a state of temporary disuse or suspension.

It is against this backdrop that Georgetown resident, Eslyn David, who has been described as an “APNU proxy” is arguing that there is nothing preventing GECOM from using the figures from those declarations to declare a winner of the elections. Basically, she is asking that the votes tabulated during the recount be scrapped and that GECOM revert to the declarations by the Returning Officers as a basis for a final declaration.

The figures from those declarations would give incumbent President David Granger a victory, and a second term in office. But, based on the figures coming out from the Recount, People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) Presidential Candidate Irfaan Ali will be sworn in as Guyana’s ninth President.

Contending that the votes tabulated and certified during the Recount, and by extension the elections lack credibility, David has mounted a Notice of Motion at the Court of Appeal where she is asking for a Declaration that GECOM failed to determine a final credible count of the votes from the Recount exercise that was scrutinized by a three-member CARICOM team.

Apart from the Declaration, she is also seeking an Order restraining Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield from submitting any report to Chairman of GECOM, retired Judge, Claudette Singh, pursuant to Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution or under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act, which contains votes from the Recount that are not valid and credible.

Article 177 of the Constitution speaks specifically to the Election of the President, while Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act outlines the methodology for the allocation of seats in the 65-member National Assembly.

Through her lawyers, Mayo Robertson and others, David argues that GECOM, in issuing the Order for the Recount, did not set aside the declarations made by the 10 Returning Officers, and that these very declarations are still valid. In fact, she argues, too, that pursuant to Section 84 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, which speaks to the counting of votes polled, these declarations are final.

Robertson, in written submissions to the Court of Appeal, therefore said, “It is submitted that Order No. 60 of 2020 [the Recount Order] did not affect Sections 84 (2)and 96 of the Representation of the People Act and consequently the Chief Elections Officer is required to act only in accordance with Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act to submit a report under that Section.”

The Recount Order is attached here: https://officialgazette.gov.gy...Y2020Ord60of2020.pdf

Under Paragraph 12 of the Recount Order, it specifically states that the matrices for the Recount of the 10 Electoral Districts shall be tabulated by the Chief Elections Officer, and shall be submitted in a report, together with a summary of the observations reports for each District to the Commission.

However, Robertson is telling the Court of Appeal that the determination by Justice Singh under Paragraph 14 of the Recount Order, that the data compiled in accordance with Paragraph 12 of the Order be used as the basis for the Chief Election’s Officer’s report, is “invalid.”

Paragraph 14 of the Recount Order states: “The Commission shall, after deliberating on the report at Paragraph 11 [of the Recount Order], determine whether it should request the Chief Elections Officer to use the data compiled in accordance with Paragraph 11 as the basis for the submission of a report under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act.”

Relying on the case of Reeaz Hollader V Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo and others , Robertson submitted to the Court of Appeal that on March 11, 2020, Chief Justice Roxane George nullified the declaration made by Mingo on March 05, 2020, as it relates to the votes cast for Electoral District 4, and ordered him to comply with the applicable law in ascertaining those votes.

The lawyer, therefore, contends that Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act is valid and extant and cannot be said to have been amended or modified. In light of the foregoing, Robertson further submitted that valid votes within the meaning of Section 96 of the aforesaid Act are votes which were ascertained by the Chief Elections Officer on the basis of votes counted and the information furnished by the Returning Officers.

“It is submitted that Order No. 60 of 2020 is inapplicable to Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution. The Order does not seek to affect it in any way,” Robertson added. He concluded, “It is submitted that under Article 177(2) (b) of the Constitution of Guyana, the Chief Election Officer is empowered to determine valid votes cast in respect of the election of a President and to tender such advice to the Guyana Elections Commission.”

FM
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member
@Former Member posted:

“APNU proxy” tells Appeal Court GECOM should use previous declarations that include Mingo’s figures to declare President

By Feona Morrison,  By Editor - 0  , Source - https://www.guyanastandard.com...o-declare-president/

“It is submitted that Order No. 60 of 2020 is inapplicable to Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution. The Order does not seek to affect it in any way,” Robertson added. He concluded, “It is submitted that under Article 177(2) (b) of the Constitution of Guyana, the Chief Election Officer is empowered to determine valid votes cast in respect of the election of a President and to tender such advice to the Guyana Elections Commission.”

Question is between "more votes" and "valid votes".

Section 177, subsection (2)(b) specifically states -- "more votes --"

Section 177, subsection (2)(b) does not state -- "valid votes" -- as presented by the lawyer for Eslyn David.

=================================

THE PRESIDENT

Section 177, subsection (2)(b)

Guyana Constitution -- https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Co...Guyana/guyana96.html

177 (2) A Presidential candidate shall be deemed to have been elected as President and shall be so declared by the Chairman of the Elections Commission ––

  (a) if he is the only Presidential candidate at the election; or

 (b) where there are two or more Presidential candidates, if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which he is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list.

FM
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
DjangoDjangoAdmin

Court of Appeal to rule Monday in challenge to GECOM declaration

June 20 2020

Source

The Guyana Court of Appeal is to rule on Monday at 1.30 pm in the case brought by Eslyn David against GECOM and the Chief Election Officer seeking to stop the declaration of the results of the March 2nd general elections.

The announcement was made this afternoon by President of the Court panel,  Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory after several hours of arguments by lawyers.

Justice Gregory’s announcement came just at the end of a sharp exchange between Kim Kyte-Thomas, counsel for GECOM Chair Claudette Singh and one of the respondents, Attorney General Basil Williams and also saw an interjection by Trinidadian Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes who is appearing for the PPP/C in the matter. 

Kyte-Thomas, who was formerly at the Attorney General’s Chambers, had made the point that judges in the recent cases brought by Reeaz Holladar and Ulita Moore had identified election credibility issues as matters which would have to be determined by an election petition. That point was made to affirm the argument on behalf of the GECOM Chair that the matters raised by David in the extant case were issues for an election petition.

Williams intervened and declared that the Holladar and Moore cases were not about credibility prompting Mendes to ask the court not to entertain Williams further since he had already had his say.

Mendes had begun his presentation by taking a dig at Williams for getting “hot under the collar” about wanting to ensure a free and fair elections while ignoring the reported fraud by District Four Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo but adopting the mere allegations of irregularities made by the Chief Election Officer. 

David, through her attorney, Mayo Robertson, has asked the appellate court to declare that GECOM has failed to determine a final credible count and or the credibility of the result of the elections and on this ground is seeking several orders.

She wants the court to grant an order restraining the CEO from complying with the Chairperson’s direction and prohibiting GECOM from determining the final credible count and or the credibility of the elections. She also wants the court to grant orders restraining the CEO from submitting the elections report to GECOM, which she is contending contains votes which are not credible.


She has mounted the challenge via a provision in Article 177 (4) of the Constitution which says that that court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to the validity of an election of a President in so far as that question depends upon the qualification of any person for election or the interpretation of the Constitution.

David’s case is not seen as having any merit and has been rebuffed by counsel for the GECOM Chair, the PPP/C and other political parties.

It is seen as a last-gasp effort by APNU+AFC to prevent the declaration of the PPP/C as the winner of the March 2nd general elections.

Django
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
DjangoDjangoAdmin

Appeal Court to rule tomorrow on GECOM declaration challenge

June 21 2020

Source

Guyana’s Court of Appeal is set to rule tomorrow on the challenge that has been mounted to prevent the Guyana Elections Com-mission (GECOM) from using the results of the recount from the March 2nd elections to make a final declaration.

The announcement was made yesterday afternoon by the President of the Court’s panel, Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory, after four hours of arguments by lawyers on the case brought by Eslyn David against the Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield and the Guy-ana Elections Commission (GECOM) to stop the declaration of the results of the polls.

Justice Gregory’s announcement came just at the end of a sharp exchange between Kim Kyte-Thomas, counsel for GECOM Chair Claudette Singh, and one of the respondents, Attorney General (AG) Basil Williams.

Kyte-Thomas, who was formerly at the Attorney General’s Chambers, had made the point that judges in the recent cases brought by Reeaz Holladar and Ulita Moore had identified election credibility issues as matters which would have to be determined by an elections petition. That point was made to affirm the argument on behalf of the GECOM Chair that the matters raised by David in the extant case were issues for an elections petition.

Williams intervened and declared that the Holladar and Moore cases were not about credibility.

As Kyte-Thomas sought to respond to the AG’s assertions, Trinidadian Keith Scotland, who was appearing for David, interjected and objected on the premise that she was engaging in an “ill-disciplined discussion” before applying to the court for a date on which judgment would be delivered. 

The court, which is expected to hand down its ruling at 1.30 pm tomorrow, has been asked to decide on two main points of law—whether it has the jurisdiction to hear the case and whether the order issued by GECOM for the national recount of the votes granted the statutory body the power to decide on the credibility of the elections.

Lowenfield, despite echoing unproven allegations made by APNU+AFC and saying that the process did not meet the standard for free, fair and credible polls, had been asked to submit a report on the results in order for GECOM to proceed with a final declaration from the recount, which shows that the opposition PPP/C won the majority of votes and the presidency.

These results, which were certified by GECOM’s Secretariat, show that the PPP/C’s list of candidates has secured 233,336 votes compared to the 217,920 garnered by the incumbent APNU+AFC coalition. This means the PPP/C has won the elections by 15,416 votes.

David initiated the challenge via a provision in Article 177 (4) of the Constitution which says that that Appeal Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to the validity of an election of a president in so far as that question depends upon the qualification of any person for election or the interpretation of the Constitution.

Eight of the 11 respondents—the PPP/C, Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, presidential candidate Irfaan Ali, ANUG, TNM, LJP, TCI and Change Guyana—have argued that this application is fundamentally misconceived for a number of reasons, including that Article 177 (4) has not been activated because Guyana’s Parliament never developed regulations governing its implementation as provided for in Article 177(5). The Court of Appeal, therefore, has no jurisdiction, they contend.

Article 177 (5) provides that Parliament may make provision for giving effect to the Article with respect to the persons by whom, the manner in which and the conditions upon which proceedings for the determination of any question, such as is mentioned in 177 (4), may be instituted in the Court of Appeal.

Trinidadian Senior Counsel John Jeremie, on behalf of David, has countered this argument by stating that Guyanese jurisprudence has consistently ruled, in keeping with the 1971 case of Jaundoo v Attorney General of Guyana, that where no provision is made for approaching the Court in respect of a jurisdiction conferred upon it, the jurisdiction of the Court may still be exercised although no appropriate rules of procedure have been made.

“The argument of the respondents is further weakened when one looks at the plain language of Article 177(5). It provides that Parliament ‘may’ make provision for giving effect to” the provisions in respect of Article 177(4). If the intention was that the exercise of the rule-making power under Article 177(5) was a condition precedent to the exercise of the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction under Article 177(4), then the legislature would have expressed itself in plain terms by the use of the word ‘shall,’” Jeremie contended.

In his written submission, he further argued that the completion of the electoral process by a declaration of the results is not a necessary precondition to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under Article 177(4).

‘Premature’

Eight of the respondents have contended that the wording of Article 177 (4) shows that it is only capable of being invoked after the election of a president has occurred.

With reference to several sections of Article 177, the PPP/C has stressed that a president is not elected until so declared by the Chairman of the Commission.

“There is simply no basis for any determination under Article 177(4) as the election is a sine qua non [absolutely necessary] to the exercise of any Article 177 (4) jurisdiction. This application is premature,” the submission filed on the party’s behalf by Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes and attorneys Devindra Kissoon and Anil Nandlall concludes, while referencing an application by Eusi Kwayana in 1980.

Jeremie later relied on this case to address the contention by the GECOM Chair that an application of Noscitur a sociis, the “context rule” of statutory interpretation, would show that the words in Article 177(4) relate to interpretation of the constitutional provisions in relation to the qualification of any person for election to the office of the president.

According to Jeremie, the ruling in the Kwayana case shows that the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction, though circumscribed, has two limited bases and allows questions as to the validity of a president in so far as such questions depend upon the qualification of any person for election or upon the interpretation of the Constitution.

The two bases, he pointed out, are clearly not dependent upon each other.

“Therefore, it is submitted that any person may approach the Court of Appeal pursuant to Article 177(4) seeking the interpretation of any provision of the Constitution so far as such an interpretation touches and concerns an election of a President,” he maintained.

The provision of the Constitution which the case seeks to have interpreted is Article 177 (2) (b) and particularly the words “more votes cast”.

According to Jeremey. Article 177(2) directly concerns how a presidential candidate is to be declared as being elected president.

“The applicant seeks simply and properly [for the] Court of Appeal to interpret Article 177 in light of Order No. 60 of 2020 which has amended the law used to determine the valid results of this election,” he claimed.

Jeremie repeatedly stressed that the procedure for determining valid votes under the Representation of the People Act was fundamentally modified by GECOM and in turn fundamentally changed the way in which the CEO ought to calculate “the total number of valid votes of electors which have been cast for each list of candidates” under section 96 of the said Act.

He maintained that according to the order, the multipart and detailed procedure was made for the dual purpose of (1) “assuaging the contesting parties”; and (2) “determining a final credible count,” thus the procedure outlined in Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act has been replaced with the reconciliation process detailed in the recount order.

“GECOM, under its wide powers, has redefined (for the purposes of the 2 March 2020 election) the procedure for the count and the ultimate determination of valid votesâ€Ķ the ultimate effect of the order is that it has modifiedâ€Ķ the process for the determination of the validity of a vote. Thus a “vote” cannot simply be a ballot found in a ballot box. A vote, in order to be valid, must mean one that is properly reconciled against the electoral documents identified in the Order,” his submission for David explained, adding that by the same order GECOM has taken over the process of determining the validity of the votes.

“Under the electoral laws of Guyana there are no express provisions preventing GECOM from invalidating a vote that is irregular and/or fraudulent. In fact, pursuant to the plenary powers of GECOM under Article 162 of the Constitution GECOM must ensure fairness and impartiality. In so doing it ought to take action to reject all irregular and/or fraudulent votes if there is a sufficient bona fide basis for doing so,” it added.

Notably this argument was supported by Williams, the fourth named respondent in the case.

Williams told the court that based on the wording of the recount order the Commission has “clothed itself with the power to decide what a credible count is and by extension what is a credible election.”

He went even further by stating that GECOM has jurisdiction to declare that the elections are cancelled on the grounds of what he alleged were uncovered manifest and pervasive irregularities, anomalies and discrepancies.

Jeremie deviated with Williams on the issue of a cancellation or annulment of the elections.

Mendes later started his presentation by taking a dig at Williams for getting “hot under the collar” about wanting to ensure a free and fair elections, while ignoring the reported fraud by District Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo but adopting the mere allegations of irregularities made by the CEO. “There is no concern that the applicant is calling on the court to revert to a fraudulent count in the form of Mingo’s declaration,” he stressed.

According to Mendes, rather than ignore the irregularities in the recount as suggested by Williams, GECOM has said that it doesn’t have the capacity to investigate these claims.

The PPP/C and the other political parties represented in the court are arguing that the credibility of an election can only be decided by the High Court via an elections petition.

Singh’s submission has also made this argument.

“Any challenge to the validity of an election and any dispute or claim of any irregularities or illegalities in relation to an election can only lawfully form the basis of an elections petition after the result of the election has been made known,” her submission to the court argues.

Kyte-Thomas, during oral arguments yesterday, went on to note that the applicant’s contention that GECOM via the order granted itself powers to decide credibility cannot be supported as any such powers do not supersede the powers granted to the High Court via Article 163 of the Constitution. “The constitution is supreme,” she stressed.

The PPP/C, while presenting a similar argument in its submission, also contended that a determination of validity “can only judicially be arrived at after a trial process capable of and sufficient to permit the resolution of factual disputes.”

Meanwhile, Kashir Khan, appearing on behalf of The Citizenship Initiative and Change Guyana, told the Court that the order should have the legal weight of a regulation since it was not passed by the legislature. “It is on the third tier of legal instruments,” he stressed, while arguing that it does not supersede the Representation of the People Act or the Constitution.

Django
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member
@Django posted:

Votes by tainted means ,nothing to boast about .FRAUD is FRAUD.

Even Mendes said yesterday that there is no perfect voting process in the world, mistakes are bound to happen. PNC is exaggerating the cases by 99.99%. According to the PNC and Lowenfield, PNC got about 75% of the votes. This is why the PNC followers believe they won.

FM
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member

Issues are linked primarily to Section 177, Guyana Constitution.

Subsection 4 refers to the Court of Appeal to determine the validity of an election of a President specific to a person's qualification for election.

Subsection 2 is quite explicit on the election of a president when there are two or more candidates for the position. Also subsection 2 (b) is specific with the words -- more votes.

Focus before the Courts relates to ...

Section 177, subsection (2)(b) specifically states -- "more votes --"

Eslyn David's views  -- "valid votes"

======================

Guyana Constitution

Source - https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Co...Guyana/guyana96.html

Section 177

THE PRESIDENT

177.(1)Any list of candidates for an election held pursuant to the provisions of article 60 (2) shall designate not more than one of those candidates as a Presidential candidate. An elector voting as such an election in favour of a list shall be deemed to be also voting in favour of the Presidential candidate named in the list.
 (2)A Presidential candidate shall be deemed to have been elected as President and shall be so declared by the Chairman of the Elections Commission ––
  (a)if he is the only Presidential candidate at the election; or
  (b)where there are two or more Presidential candidates, if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which he is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list.
 (3)Where no person is elected as President under paragraph (2) and where the votes cast in favour of each list are equal in number, or where the votes cast in favour of each of two or more lists are equal in number by greater that the number of votes cast in favour of any other list, the Chairman of the Elections Commission, acting in the presence of the Chancellor and of the public, shall by lot choose one of the lists in respect of which the votes are equal in either of the circumstances aforesaid and shall declare the Presidential candidate designated in that list to be duly elected as President.
 (4)The Court of Appeal shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to the validity of an election of a President in so far as that question depends upon the qualification of any person for election or the interpretation of this Constitution; and decision of that Court under this paragraph shall be final.
 (5)Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make provision for giving effect to the provisions of this Title and, without prejudice to the generality thereof, may make provision ––
  (a)for the conduct of elections to the office of President; and
  (b)with respect to the persons by whom, the manner in which and the conditions upon which proceedings for the determination of any question such as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph may be instituted in the Court of Appeal and, subject to any provisions made under subparagraph (b), provision may be made with respect to the matters referred to therein by rules of court.
 (6)Subject to the provisions of paragraph (4), an instrument which ––
  (a)is executed under the hand of the Chairman of the Elections Commission and
  (b)states that a person named in the instrument was declared elected as President at an election held pursuant to the provisions of article 60 (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the person so named was so elected and no question as to the validity of the election as the President of the person so named shall be inquired into in any court.

 

FM
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
R Ramakant-PSenior Member

You guys can print those things a thousand times it wouldn't make a difference tomorrow.   The court has the final say and their declaration will be law.    Whom soever loses will scream that it was rigged.  

It would be better if there are fresh elections with the Chief Justice appointing new members in GECOM without the Political Parties interfering in the process.

R
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member

Appeal Court has no jurisdiction to hear APNU/AFC’s Motion – Justice Rishi Persaud

, Source - https://www.inewsguyana.com/ap...stice-rishi-persaud/

The Court of Appeal has determined that it has no jurisdiction to hear the motion filed by Eslyn David, seeking to block the Guyana Elections Commission from declaring the results of the 2020 General and General Elections.

This position was handed down by Justices Rishi Persaud, who struck out the motion.

Yet to deliver their ruling are Justices Brassington Reynolds and Dawn Gregory.

The applicant, Eslyn David was seeking that the court interprets the Constitution and determine whether more votes cast can be considered as more valid votes cast. David’s application was filed pursuant to Article 177 (4) of the Constitution of Guyana.

Article 177 (4) states: “The Court of Appeal shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to the validity of an election of a President in so far as the question depends upon the qualification of any person for election or the interpretation of this Constitution; and any decision of that Court under this paragraph shall be final.”

The Pike Street, Sophia resident is seeking a number of reliefs from the court. She is asking that the court make a declaration that GECOM has failed to “determine a final credible count and or the credibility of the result of the General and Regional Elections” in accordance with order No 60 of 2020 and the amended Order dated the 29th day of May 2020.

David also wanted the court to issue an order for an interpretation of the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution. Article 177 (2) (b) states: “â€Ķwhere there are two or more Presidential Candidates, if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which a person is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list, that Presidential Candidate shall be deemed to be elected President and shall be so declared by the Chairman of the Elections Commissionâ€Ķ”

Moreover, the coalition supporter was also asking the court for an order restraining the CEO from “complying with the Direction of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commissionâ€Ķ to submit to the Guyana Elections Commission an Elections Report under Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution of Guyana [and under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act] without the Guyana Elections Commission determining the final credible count and or the credibility of the General and Regional Electionsâ€Ķ”

She also wants an order restraining the CEO from submitting to GECOM, his Elections Report which contains votes that are not valid and credible within the meaning of order No 60 of 2020, and under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act.

However, the Chair of GECOM, who via attorney Kim Kyte had urged the court to dismiss the matter since it is misconceived. She identified that the application speaks to the declaration of Dr Irfaan Ali as President but reminded that the seat is still being occupied by David Granger.

Kyte furthered that it is a matter for the High Court since the Appeal Court can only interpret the Constitution and not the recount order.

She argued that the recount order cannot alter the Constitution of Guyana to give GECOM the power to determine the credibility of an elections and as such noted that she and her client believes that the issue can be ventilated via an election petition.

In her written submission to the court, Kyte submitted that the duty of the court is not to re-write the Constitution but to interpret what is already stated in the Constitution clearly. The words themselves best declare the intention of the framers.

She argued that Article 177 (4), under which the Notice of Motion was filed, clothes the Court of Appeal with a “narrow special exclusive jurisdiction” to hear and determine any question as to the validity of an election of a President in so far as that question turns upon the qualification of any person for election or the interpretation of this Constitution.

Kyte in her submissions questioned if GECOM is to embark on this credibility exercise then what basis should be used to determine the issues of validity and credibility.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
FM Former Member

GECOM must determine “more valid votes cast” using qualitative & quantitative criteria – Justice Brassington Reynolds

, Source - https://www.inewsguyana.com/ge...rassington-reynolds/

Justice Brassington Reynolds has determined that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear the motion filed by Eslyn David, who is seeking to block the Guyana Elections Commission from declaring the results of the 2020 General and General Elections.

However, he explained that while the Appeal Court has jurisdiction, it cannot grant the injunction as is being sought by the applicant.

Further, Justice Reynolds ordered that GECOM must determine “more valid votes cast” using qualitative and quantitative criteria.

Justice Rishi Persaud had earlier ruled that the Appeal Court has no jurisdiction and as such, struck out the motion.

Yet to deliver their ruling is Justice Dawn Gregory.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
DjangoDjangoAdmin

BREAKING: Guyana’s Court of Appeal rules that “more votes are cast” means “more valid votes” for election of President

 June 22, 2020

Source

The Guyana Court of Appeal on Monday ruled by majority  that it has jurisdiction to hear an elections case for GECOM and furthered interpreted that more votes are cast means more valid votes are cast.

APNU+AFC supporter Eslyn David wanted the Court to find that the Chief Elections Officer must first determine credible votes cast to calculate the election results of the March 2, 2020 polls.

On the point of whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction, Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud ruled “no”, Justice Brassington Reynolds decided “yes” and Justice of Appeal, Dawn Gregory ruled “yes”.

The court also ruled that “more votes are cast ” mean “more valid votes are cast” in keeping with the Recount Order. The CARICOM Recount includes a tabulation that is identical to the Chief Elections Officer’s initial report that describes them as “total valid votes cast”.

All the other orders were refused.

Attorneys-at-Law Kashir Khan’s application for a three-day stay of the orders was granted by the Court.

Brassington said the jurisdiction turns on the election of a President based on Article 177 (4).

GECOM, Mr. Reynolds futther said, has a responsibility to determine the final credible count based on quantitative and qualitative assessments of the observation report, in keeping with provisions of the original order and in the final paragraph of the amended order.

Justice Reynolds ordered that more votes cast in article 177 2 b be interpreted to mean more valid votes cast in keeping with the meaning of the gazetted recount Order Number 60.

Justice Persaud said the Court of Appeal is “without jurisdiction” based on Article 177 of Guyana’s constitution. Saying that that Article is about after a President is elected and so the motion by David is “simply premature.”

Justice Persaud said he was unable to find any law showing that  GECOM  can pursue any evidential-based investigation or annul an election other than by an election petition at the High Court.

But Justice Reynolds said the special regime was created by the Gazetted recount order

Mr Reynolds said there are separate elections for the President and the National Assembly although they are held at the same time.

Mr. Reynolds said The National Assembly Validity Elections Act only applies to the election of members of the National Assembly, not the President and that Parliament consists of the President and the National Assembly.

Justice Reynolds said that Article 177(4) establishes a separate exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the validity of an election of a president and interpretation  of the constitution as it relates to an election of the President.

Django
Last edited by Django
Add Reaction
ðŸ’ŊâĪïļðŸ˜‚🎉🙏ðŸĪ”😀ðŸ˜đ👍👎☝ïļðŸ‘ðŸ˜ŧ👀ðŸ‘ŋðŸ˜ĒðŸĪŠðŸĪĢ✅🙄ðŸĪ·ðŸ”Ĩ🏆📈ðŸĪŊ
Next

Add Reply

Views: 1,303

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Welcome to the Original Guyanese Discussion Forums, first established in 1996. Here you can discuss, ask questions or generally debate anything related to politics, movies, music, health or just gyaff away your day/night here. A note of warning, the Political forum is not for the faint of heart.  We do have some rules, so please adhere to them .
 
Privacy Statement - Rules

 
 

 

×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×

Access to this requires a premium membership.

GNI VIP Member

Welcome to the Original Guyanese Discussion Forums, first established in 1996. Here you can discuss, ask questions or generally debate anything related to politics, movies, music, health or just gyaff away your day/night here.

Please note while you do have free access to our Forums, the Political Forum will now be a Paid Membership Forum. What does this mean? To write in the Political Forum you must be a paying member. The fee is $25.00 US per year and is non refundable. Payment can be done through PayPal.
Membership is not automatically renewed and you can cancel anytime
We do have some rules, so please adhere to them.
$25.00 per 12 Months (plus tax if applicable)
×