CCJ sets aside CEO report that gave coalition victory …quashes Court of Appeal order on valid votes

THE Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Wednesday invalidated a report by the Chief Elections Officer which gave the coalition victory at the March 2, 2020 polls based on valid votes. The court also despite strenuous arguments said it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal by the PPP/C while setting aside an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal which ordered that more votes cast means more valid votes cast.
The CEO report had given the coalition victory by 33 seats to the PPP 31 and the joinder party one seat.
The report by the CEO assessed all the 2,339 ballot boxes and separated those votes that have been deemed invalid based on the laws of Guyana and the gazetted order of the recount.
Last week in his submissions to the panel of five judges led by President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders, Guyana’s Attorney General, while maintaining that the country’s apex court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal to decision made under Article 177 (4) of the Constitution, submitted that it was widespread anomalies and cases of voter impersonation that warranted a clear indication that the President ought to be elected on the basis of “valid votes.”
Under Section 96, his remit is to calculate valid votes , that position has been constitutionalized by Article 162 (1) (b), the reason as Justice Jamadar for in “The reason for introducing valid in 177 (2) (b) is simple, fraudulent votes. The elections produced fraud of an unprecedented scale in the history of elections in Guyana and therefore every precaution had to be taken to ensure that in the Presidential elections also, in Article 177, if more votes are cast, should be crystalized,” the Attorney General explained.
At the time, he was offering clarification in light of a series of questions that were posed by President of the CCJ, in addition to Justice Jacob Wit and Justice Peter Jamadar. Williams told the Court the Court that while Article 163 of the Constitution grants the High Court exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of the election of any Member of the National Assembly, the President does not form part of the National Assembly. He submitted that only the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the election of any person to the Office of the President.
On the issue of jurisdiction, the Attorney General, pointed out that any decision made by the Court of Appeal under Article 177 (4) of the Constitution is final, and cannot be the subject of an appeal in any other court including the CCJ. He submitted that while Parliament, under Article 123 of the Constitution, established the CCJ as Guyana’s final Appellate Court with the enactment of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act, the court’s jurisdiction is limited. Section 4 (3) of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act, he said, limits the court’s jurisdiction. “Nothing in this Act shall confer jurisdiction on the Court to hear matters in relation to any decision of the Court of Appeal which at the time of entry into force of this Act was declared to be final by any law,” the section states.
Further to that, he made it clear that no act can override the constitution – the supreme law of the law. A similar line of argument was put forward by Antigua and Barbuda’s Queen Counsel, Justin Simon, who appeared in association with the Attorney General; Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel John Jeremie, who appeared on behalf of Eslyn David, a North Sophia voter; and Senior Counsel Reginald Armour of Trinidad and Tobago, who represented the interest of the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) coalition.
Trinidad’s Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes – the lead attorney for the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo; and Presidential Candidate Irfaan Ali (the appellants), while confirming that the court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal to a decision made under Article 177 (4), submitted to the CCJ that the Court of Appeal had no decision to hear the case, and it’s decision was bad in law. On that basis, Mendes, whose submissions were endorsed by Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran and Attorneys-at-Law Kashir Khan and Timothy Jonas, argued that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and in hearing the appeal should set aside the decision of the lower court. The Court of Appeal on June 22 ordered that the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution be interpreted to mean “more valid votes are cast” in a case brought by Eslyn David – a North Sophia voter. In objection, the PPP/C is seeking special leave to appeal that decision. The Chair of GECOM, Justice Ret’d Claudette Singh, who opted not to actively participate in the case, had indicated that she will respect the decision of the CCJ.