Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
Lead Counsel for the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic, Trinidadian, Douglas Mendes has agreed that the Caribbean Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction to determine the case, although now arguing that their case is that the Court of Appeal did not make a decision under Article 177(4) since in the circumstances of this case it had no jurisdiction to act under Article 177(4).
Only on Sunday Grenadian Queen Counsel, Dr. Francis Alexis was quoted in the Guyana Chronicle as saying that the Court of Appeal was right in ruling that Guyana’s President ought to be elected based on valid votes in accordance with the Constitution and Electoral Laws of the country. He said too that there can be no challenge to that decision, even at the level of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Dr Alexis said to do so, would be to overrule the constitutional provisions provided for in Articles 177 (4) AND 162 (1) (b) of the Constitution. On that basis, he said the application filed by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) for special leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal should not be granted.
The PPP/C last Tuesday had applied to the CCJ for special leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal to interpret the words of Article 177 (2) (b) to mean “more valid votes are cast” in determining the President following an Election.
The admission of Mendes in his submission to the court would appear to be a capitulation of the defense of the opposition which had been arguing earlier that the CCJ could hear the case. In court papers submitted to Mendes which was seen by this newspaper Mendes submitted: “The Intended Appellants agree with all three Respondents that by virtue of section 4(3) of the CCJ Act, this Honourable Court was not vested with jurisdiction to hear any matter in relation to any decision of the Court of Appeal which at the time the CCJ Act came into force was declared to be final. They therefore agree that this Honourable Court does not have jurisdiction to hear any matter in relation to a decision made by the Court of Appeal under Article 177(4) of the Constitution,” Mendes said.
Mendes added: “They also agree with the First Respondent’s submission (para 50; CCJ Ref: 2956) that, to the extent that any decision of the Court of Appeal under Article 177(4) is final and un-appealable, this Honourable Court does not have jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal. It is therefore unnecessary to traverse the long list of authorities which the First Respondent’s cites on the lack of jurisdiction of the Privy Council to grant special leave to appeal in the face of a statutory provision making decisions of the Court of Appeal final in election petitions or otherwise,” Mendes submitted.
