Although granted a one-day stay of the ruling of the Appeal Court, which dismissed a challenge to the use of the results of the national recount to make a final declaration from the March 2nd polls, attorneys for appellant Misenga Jones had not taken a decision on an approach to Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) up to yesterday afternoon.
Just after 2 pm yesterday, the 24-hour stay of the effect of the decision expired with no further action being taken.
Attorney Roysdale Forde, who is one of Jones’ lawyers and who requested the stay to “consider the way forward,” told Stabroek News that no decision had been made.
Lawyers for two of 12 the respondents were, however, not ready to celebrate as yet.
“They have 42 days within which they can file an appeal. The stay had no effect… only when Roysdale Forde or John Jeremie say there isn’t going to be an appeal then I am going to believe there isn’t going to be an appeal. I remain skeptical until then,” attorney for A New United Guyana (ANUG) Kamal Ramkarran indicated.
In an invited comment, former Attorney General Anil Nandlall, who was among the attorneys for the PPP/C candidates Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo, said that he was “indifferent” to the current state of affairs.
“I’m indifferent about an appeal not yet being filed since a case should not have been filed. The issues were already litigated and the judges [on Thursday] all mentioned abuse of process. No prudent lawyer would appeal,” he said.
Nandlall went on to note that the decision of the Appeal Court was not just unanimous but also elaborately demonstrated that the issues had been previously litigated in other cases.
“All three judges pointed to the fact that there has to be an end… litigation cannot be perennial or perpetual,” he stressed, while adding that any appeal filed would be a further abuse of the court system.
Asked if a possibility exists that the lawyers for the appellant could be disciplined by the court if they persist with cases so deemed, Nandlall said yes.
“Lawyers have a duty to the court not to take cases that they ought to know have no likelihood of success as well as a duty to their clients to explain to them when they have no case… Lawyers who keep filing unnecessary, frivolous and abusive litigation can be visited with sanctions, they can be subject to cost to be paid personally,” he explained before adding that there is a rule that the Chief Justice can issue a practice direction or make an order that a particular lawyer cannot file a case without the leave of the court.
This leave is similar to that which the CCJ would have to grant were the appellant to seek to file an appeal.
“At the CCJ, they have to show they have an appeal that has some prospect of success,” he explained.
The lawyers would not comment on whether the absence of an appeal means that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) can move to finally make a declaration of the winner of the country’s longest ever national elections process.
They both maintain that nothing was constraining GECOM since the Chief Justice ruled last Monday.
“At the High Court, Ms [Kim] Kyte-Thomas gave an undertaking [that GECOM would not act]. An appeal is not a stay of the High Court’s decision and therefore GECOM always could act,” Ramkarran noted.
Kyte-Thomas, who represented GECOM chair Claudette Singh, had given the High Court the referenced undertaking but declined to do the same following Thursday’s ruling.
Asked to respond to Forde’s request for a stay, the attorney objected. “Nothing has been granted. There is nothing to be stayed. All that has happened is a dismissal of a frivolous and vexatious appeal. The work of GECOM must be completed if we continue like this when will we have elections results 2025? This is untenable,” she told the court out of seeming frustration.
