Government’s failure to object to the Alliance for Change elections petition within the approved period renders its arguments against the party’s High Court action irrelevant, attorney-at-law Stephen Fraser said on Friday in rebuttal to preliminary points raised in the current trial.
Fraser said issues about “procedural flaws” and a special jurisdiction” being invoked to hear the petition, as previously argued by attorneys for government, are expected in such a trial but he noted that such arguments are of no particular substance. He said the issues are being raised simply for the sake of “being raised”.
The attorney, who represents AFC in the long-delayed case, focused his preliminary submissions on the issue of tardiness with respect to how the administration responded after the AFC filed its election petition in the court protesting the outcome of the Region Ten parliament seat following the 2006 general elections. He contended that the government waited some six months before it objected to the petition, noting that no intervention or summons to have the petition dismissed was filed in the case until a considerable amount of time had elapsed.
Fraser cited the laws and the authorities to support his contentions and referred to specific rules as set out in the National Assembly Validity of Elections Act. He argued that once the petition has been triggered, that is no objections have been raised within in the period identified, any arguments to come after it are meaningless. The petition, Fraser said, “is put into issue” when that period elapses.
Fraser’s arguments were followed by a brief submission by attorney-at-law and AFC Chairman, Khemraj Ramjattan who has entered an appearance on behalf of the party’s leader, Raphael Trotman. Trotman is listed as a defendant in the case and earlier arguments raised have pointed to him being improperly joined in the petition. However, Ramjattan submitted that AFC member Walter Melville who filed the petition rightfully named Trotman as a defendant because “he had no idea which party the seat was going to”. According to Ramjattan, Trotman was named in his capacity as the leader of a party that contested the elections.
Senior Counsel Ashton Chase and attorney, Anil Nandlall have indicated their intention to respond to the arguments raised by Fraser and Ramjattan and the case was adjourned to a date early next month. Previously, both have alleged procedural flaws on the part of the AFC saying the petition is without merit and should be struck out.
Minutes after the hearing concluded Nandlall sought to raise what he referred to as improper conduct on the part of the AFC leader saying that Trotman had no right saying in the local newspapers recently that the Prime Minister Samuel Hinds is “squatting in Parliament” in the AFC seat. Nandlall said the matter is sub judice and should remain that way, but Ramjattan countered saying the rules of sub judice were “very minimal these days”.
The High Court is hearing the AFC’s election petition or the second time. The case was initially heard by then Chief Justice Carl Singh but no decision was handed down, and later became tangled up in the backlog of High Court cases. The case file also went missing earlier this year and Justice Chang had called on the AFC to reconstruct the file for fresh proceedings to begin – the party agreed but the file was later found.
AFC member Walter Melville filed the petition on behalf of the party concerning the Region Ten parliamentary seat shortly after the 2006 general elections. The AFC has said publicly there had been no determination of the Region Ten seat following the 2006 elections though it possessed certified statements of poll showing that the party had won the seat. Trotman said the party had won more votes than the PPP/C in Region Ten. He added that the seat should have therefore been assigned to the AFC.