-decision for sharing among opposition parliamentary parties upheld
In a unanimous decision the Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) ought to have allocated monies to the Opposition parliamentary parties for scrutineering activities on the basis of the number of seats they held and not exclusively grant the main opposition party a lump sum.
The ruling went against GECOM’s decision to hand out half of the $100M approved for scrutineering activities by Parliament to the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) only since it does not constitute the combined Opposition parties, and it upheld a decision handed down by High Court Judge Justice Jainarayan Singh Jr. in the matter.
In dismissing GECOM’s appeal, the court which comprised Chancellor (ag) Carl Singh and Justices Nandram Kissoon and Yonette Cummings-Edwards, said there is no law which says the PNCR should receive the proportion that was it allocated.
Opposition parliamentary parties- the Alliance for Change (AFC), and Guyana Action Party/Rise Organise and Rebuild (GAG/ROAR) were therefore entitled to proportionate allocations of the monies handed out.
Chairman of the AFC, Khemraj Ramjattan said yesterday that though the registration process has commenced the party will seek an immediate meeting with GECOM to advise them of the court’s ruling.
He asserted that there must be an equitable allocation of the funds noting that there is evidence to suggest the registration process still has some way to go. Ramjattan said that they [AFC] could get people on the ground but they must be paid, adding that it is unfortunate the entire allocation for opposition parties has so far gone to the PNCR.
“GECOM has not behaved fairly at all in this matter and this includes refusing to abide by a High Court order in this case. They went ahead and acted shamelessly by paying out this money to the PNCR. Further to this, we heard that the money was at the benevolence of the government”, Ramjattan added.
In ruling, the Court of Appeal addressed several points raised in the appeal by counsel for GECOM, Ashton Chase SC which included the issue that Parliamentarians David Patterson of the AFC and Everall Franklin of GAP/ROAR, who filed the initial High Court application, had no locus standi to institute proceedings of such a nature. Chase argued that the application should have been filed by the political parties since they were the ones aggrieved.
But the court ruled against Chase stating that this was a restrictive, conservative approach and pointed out that it takes a liberal approach in that any member of the public, who sees a wrong being done by any government department-statutory or constitutional- which is responsible for seeing that the law is enforced, will be an adequate party to institute legal proceedings in such matters.
The court said too, that it found it totally unacceptable that GECOM did not see it fit to respond at the level of the High Court when the matter was engaging the attention of the court. GECOM though served in that matter did not put in an appearance. According to the Court of Appeal, GECOM had obligations to file an answer to the assertions that were made by Patterson and Franklin.
Further, the court disagreed with Chase and ruled that GECOM as a constitutional body is subject to scrutiny by both the High Court and the Appeal Court. Chase had stated that GECOM is not subject to such scrutiny. Senior counsel had also argued that Chief Election Officer, Gocool Boodhoo was not an agent of GECOM during the period the parties said he spoke with them on the issue of monies being allocated. But the court ruled that Boodhoo was an agent of the elections body.
In an affidavit sworn in support of their High Court motion filed by attorney-at-law Khemraj Ramjattan, Patterson and Franklin said all the Parliamentary political parties agreed on June 14, 2007 that a new house-to-house registration shall be conducted by GECOM and that under section 8 of the Elections Laws Amendment Act 15 of 2000 provision is made for the payment of monies to scrutineers from the governing party on one hand, and on the other and to the combined Parliamentary opposition.
The two stated that they were subsequently informed by Commissioners from within GECOM of the decision taken on September 25, 2007. A decision referred to in court documents as unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and hence null and void.
Patterson and Franklin said their representative, Clayton Hall, Chief Executive Officer of the AFC communicating to GECOM’s representative Gocool Boodhoo addressed the concerns they raised through correspondence dated August 16, 2007 and September 20, 2007.
GECOM then responded through Boodhoo on October 2, 2007 and stated that at a statutory meeting on September 25, 2007 it was decided that GECOM has no authority under law to make payments on a proportionality basis. As a result, Patterson and Franklin said, they indicated to Boodhoo through a telephone call from their attorney, Ramjattan on October 4, 2007 that its decision not to equitably and proportionately allocate to the respective Parliamentary Opposition parties will be unfair in that giving monies to a separate party representative, the PNC/R, who does not represent the AFC or GAP/ROAR, may mean that AFC/GAP/ROAR parties scrutineers will be left unpaid.
But the arguments did not impress Boodhoo, according to the court application since his short answer was that if they [AFC/GAP/ROAR] want fairness, equity and proportionality they must go to Parliament and pass a law to provide for the proportionate allocation of such monies to the respective parities which comprise the combined Parliamentary Opposition parties. Boodhoo emphasized that this was a unanimous GECOM position on the issue.
