Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang sharing a light moment with Attorneys Anil Nandlall and Roysdale Forde (Attorney-at-Law representing GECOM CEO) after the hour-long hearing in Chambers on the election petition case

Election petition case

People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Member of Parliament (MP) Ganga Persaud filed a summons in the High Court requesting that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) present several documents that can aid in countering the summons filed to throw out the election petition case.

On Tuesday, the election petition was finally heard in acting Chief Justice Ian Chang’s Chambers.

Since the petition was filed on June 24, several summonses were counter-filed asking the Court to dismiss the petition on several grounds. GECOM Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, Attorney General Basil Williams and Representative of the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) List of Candidates, Professor Harold Lutchman all filed summonses claiming that the petition did not have sufficient facts to engage the court’s attention.

As a result, the PPP/C has since filed a summons, asking the Court to order GECOM’s CEO to provide certain information that can prove that the election petition was worth a fair trial.

In the summons, the Party is asking that GECOM produce for inspection and examination for the purpose of the election petition all election papers and documents including those received from the Returning Officer of each electoral division. These include all electoral lists containing the names of the persons entitled to vote at the said polling division; all issued ballots; all unused ballots; all the votes cast by electors at each polling division; all statements of poll issued at the said polling division; all certificates of counting issued in respect to the votes cast at each and every polling division and all poll books used at each and every polling division, among others.

In the court document, the Party stated that the papers and documents were voluminous and would naturally take up considerable judicial time in examining each and every paper and document, but it noted that the inspection of these documents would facilitate the presentation to the court of the election papers and documents including the issued ballots, the statements of poll, the votes cast and the votes rejected which is the validity of which the petition requires the court to rule upon.

Moreover, the Party highlighted that the documents requested were all public documents, which, therefore, by law, should be available for inspection and examination. Additionally, the Party said in the summons that the GECOM CEO could not be “embarrassed nor suffer any injustice if the reliefs prayed for in the summons are granted”.

Following the declaration of the results of the May 11 General and Regional Elections, Ganga filed the petition asking the court to grant a number of orders including the nullification of the May 11 Elections results, as well as an order for new elections to be held.

During its first hearing on Tuesday, the parties involved argued whether or not the petition had sufficient facts to engage the court’s attention.

The matter was adjourned to next Monday when the parties will continue with arguments on the summons filed by the GECOM CEO.

While the acting 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.