Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse, the petitioners in whose names the main opposition APNU+AFC sought to challenge the results of the March 2nd, 2020 polls, have moved to appeal the decision by the Chief Justice to throw out the case.
On January 18th, acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire SC threw out one of the two petitions brought on behalf of the coalition because the APNU+AFC presidential candidate David Granger was not served on time.
Thomas and Nurse were contending in their petition that the elections were unlawfully conducted and/or that the results (if lawfully conducted) were affected or might have been affected by unlawful acts or omissions. They nonetheless argue that from those polls it is Granger who should be declared the duly-elected President of Guyana.
They were seeking to have the court nullify the outcome and to declare President Irfaan Ali to be illegally holding office.
With their appeal, they are contending that in throwing out their petition, the Chief Justice erred in law and misdirected herself when she misapplied the doctrine of strict compliance by holding that such compliance related to the contents of the affidavit of service instead of the filing of the affidavit of service in a timely manner.
Through their attorney, Roysdale Forde SC, they argue, too, that the judge erred in law and misdirected herself when she concluded that the interest to be considered in assessing the impact of Section 4 (2) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act is in the interest in the outcome of a future election as opposed to the interest in the election against which the petition was filed.
They contend, too, that the judge erred in law and misdirected herself in the application of case law authorities.
The appellants are of the view that the chief justice erred in dismissing the entire petition on reason of non-service on Granger and his notice that he was not opposing the petition.
According to Thomas and Nurse, Justice George-Wiltshire also erred in law and misdirected herself when she concluded that leave was required to file a supplementary affidavit of service to give a more complete understanding of how service was effected on Granger.
The appellants are contending also that the judge erred when she held that Granger was a proper and necessary party to the petition and misdirected herself by failing to recognise that the purpose of Rule 9 of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Rules, requiring service of an Affidavit, is to verify that service was achieved within the time prescribed by the statute, and that an error in the Affidavit does not affect the fact of service.
Dismissing the contention advanced by attorneys for petitioners, Thomas and Nurse, the Chief Justice had said that there was compelling evidence to support the respondents’ argument that Granger was not served with the petition on time.
The results of a national recount of all ballots cast showed that it was the PPP/C, which had won the elections with 233,336 votes over the coalition’s 217,920 votes.
In the other petition, which is proceeding, petitioners Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick want the court to determine, among other things, questions regarding whether the elections have been lawfully conducted or whether the results have been, or may have been affected by any unlawful act or omission and, in consequence thereof, whether the seats in the National Assembly have been lawfully allocated.
