The Guyana Court of Appeal will hear arguments on Saturday morning at 10, in the appeal filed by Tucville resident Misenga Jones, who is challenging the High Court’s decision upholding the validity of the national recount of votes from the March 2 polls.
At a case management conference yesterday afternoon, Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory who is hearing the case along with appellate judge Rishi Persaud and High Court judge Priya Sewnarine-Beharry said that the court will announce on Saturday when it will rule.
Citing the national importance of the case, Justice Gregory said that the matter will be dealt with expeditiously and to this end went on to set rigid timelines for the filing of submissions and the hearing which she urged all attorneys to strictly adhere to.
Attorney General Basil Williams who is listed as a respondent has indicated his intention to file a cross appeal which the court instructed him to prepare and email no later than 8 this morning. Having not properly lain over the grounds on which he intends to appeal, Justice Gregory told him that this will be dealt with when the appeal is being heard.
Williams did, however, say that he wishes to challenge the Chief Justice’s ruling declaring Order 60 which facilitated the recount as being valid as well as issues which she deemed to have already been litigated and decided upon.
He said, too, that he will be challenging the constitutionality of Sections 22 and 18 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act (ELA).
Meanwhile, as regard timelines for the hearing on Saturday, counsel for Jones (the appellant), John Jeremie will be allotted half an hour to make his presentations; while each of the 12 respondents will be given 20 minutes.
At 12:30 there will be a 15-minute recess and the appellant’s counsel will have half an hour to reply to the submissions of the respondents.
Justice Gregory said that no specific allotment would be made for presentation and responses on the cross appeal, noting the matter will proceed until all the presentations are complete.
For Saturday’s hearing, the appellant’s submissions are to be filed no later than noon today, while the respondents’ submissions are to be filed no later than 3am tomorrow.
The appellant will then have to file her responding submissions to the respondents and the AG’s cross appeal no later than midday tomorrow.
The final reply to the cross appeal from Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes on behalf of the Opposition People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) is then to be laid over with the court no later than 6 pm tomorrow.
The attorneys were instructed to ensure that their written submissions are no longer than 10 pages, using Times New Roman, font size 12 and 1.5 line spacing.
Senior Counsel Neil Boston who represents Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield – another respondent in the matter, has indicated to the court that his client will not participate in the appeal.
Among other things, Jones’ appeal contends that acting Chief Justice Roxane Justice George-Wiltshire erred in law in her pronouncements on the recount, the results of which she said is the only data that could be used by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to declare a winner of the elections in keeping with a judgment by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
The appellant is of the view that the judge erred in law when she failed to find that the Chairperson of GECOM Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh and the Commission itself had acted outside their constitutional and or statutory powers.
According to Jones, Justice George-Wiltshire erred in her holding that the declarations of the Returning Officers (ROs) on March 13, which were made pursuant to Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), had been overtaken by events, were no longer useful, and, therefore, could not be resurrected.
Jones’ application before the High Court has been based on her contention that the Chairperson could only make a declaration from the report submitted by CEO Lowenfield based on the reports he received from the ROs of each of the 10 electoral districts as opposed to the results of the recount.
The Chief Justice, however, dispelled this view as she noted that based on the interpretation of the CCJ’s decision regarding Order 60, by which the recount was facilitated, the declarations of the ROs could not be used.
Among other things, the Chief Justice ruled that GECOM, “in its wisdom,” considered that there were difficulties that had to be addressed in order to produce what is termed in Order 60 as a credible count.
Jones is also contending that the Chief Justice erred when she held that the issue of the constitutionality of Section 22 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act (ELA) was res judicata (a thing, matter, or determination that is adjudged or final).
The Commission, Singh, Lowenfield, the AG, PPP/C and the other non-government political parties which contested the March 2nd elections are listed as respondents in Jones’ action.
Jones had contended that Singh could only make a declaration from the report submitted by Lowenfield and that neither she nor the Commission could dictate to him what his report should contain.
As a result, Jones asserted that GECOM was obligated to accept the CEO’s report of June 11th, in which he relied on the declarations made up to March 13 by the Returning Officers for the 10 administrative regions.
Those declarations, which were disputed due to the manipulation of the Region Four results, had been held in abeyance as the recount was agreed to. The recount showed that the PPP/C won the majority of votes, while Lowenfield had sought to declare results in favour of the incumbent APNU+AFC.
Jones was asking the court to make a number of declarations, including that Singh had failed to act in accordance with the advice of the CEO in his most recent report as mandated by Article 177(2) (b) of the Constitution.
Following the CCJ ruling, Singh had instructed Lowenfield to submit a report using tabulations from the national recount of ballots cast on March 2nd. Lowenfield has, however, repeatedly submitted reports which show a win for the incumbent.
