…Jagdeo seeks to nullify them based on technicality
On November 24, the Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire will hear legal arguments on whether or not the Elections Petitions filed by the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance Force Change (APNU+AFC) could be nullified based on a technicality.
During the virtual Case Management Conference on Thursday, Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes told the Chief Justice that the applications filed in the cases of Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse vs. the Chief Elections Officer and others (No. 88 of 2020); and Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick vs. the Chief Elections Officer and others (No. 99 of 2020), did not comply with the rule resulting in flawed service. He explained that his client Bharrat Jagdeo – the fourth named respondents in both cases – was not served.
“We are concerned that the application that was made certainly in relation to No. 88 did not comply with the rule, and the order that was made in No. 99 did not comply with the rule. In other words, what the rule requires is that you seek an order from the Court that the Court is satisfied that the actions that were taken thus far were sufficient for service purposes and in effect services deemed to have taken place, and it does not appear that the Order reflects that,” Mendes explained.
An Order was reportedly granted for Jagdeo to be served by registered mail, however, at the time of the Case Management Conference he was not served. “Certainly the application will be that service was not effected at all on Mr Jagdeo,” Mendes said.
In response, Justice George-Wiltshire confirmed that the High Court did in fact received the applications from the petitioners and would have ruled “whether rightly or wrongly the order would have been made.”
Mendes, nonetheless maintained that the applications were not made in accordance with the rule. “The information that we have leads to the provisional view that the application was not made, in accordance with the rules, and therefore proper service has not been effected,” the Trinidadian Senior Counsel maintained, while signaling his intention to have the petitions nullified.
While noting that she has difficulties with Mendes’ contextualization of the issue at hand, the Chief Justice granted leave for a formal application to treat with the matter.
Mendes is now required to file the application on behalf of his client on or before November 5, 2020. Respondents in the matter, in particular the petitioners, are required to respond no later than November 19. Oral arguments will be heard on November 24, 2020.
OTHER LEGAL ISSUES
But aside from the technical issues raised by Mendes, the Chief Justice said it was important to address other issues detected.
Singling out Petition No. 99 of 2020, Justice George-Wiltshire pointed out that it would appear that the second named Respondent – David Granger, Representative of the APNU+AFC – was served outside of the stipulated timeline.
“From our record the petition was filed on September 15th, 2020 [and] it is my understanding from the rules, that the Petition must be served within five days excluding the day of filing. According to the record of service, the petition was served on September 25, which would appear to be outside of the time for the service of the petition,” the Chief Justice pointed out while noting that Granger should have been served on September 22, 2020.
Attorney-at-Law Mayo Robertson, who is among a battery of lawyers representing the petitioners in Petition 99 of 2020, committed to making formal submissions on the matter.
Further, the Chief Justice pointed to reliefs sought in both Petitions 88 and 99 appear to conflict with provisions in the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act.
“In [Petition] 88 of 2020 at paragraph 13, one of the reliefs claimed is an order that the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission declare the Presidential Candidate designated on the APNU+AFC List of Candidates as the duly elected president of the Guyana in accordance with Article 177 of the Constitution,” the Chief Justice pointed out while noting that similar relief is being sought in Petition 99.
She explained, however, that Section 4 (2) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act provides that a respondent would be a person representing a list whose interest conflicts with the petition.
“The question is whether the second respondent [David Granger] has an interest that conflicts with the petition,” she queried, while pointing to Section 27 (2) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act.
As such, submissions with regard to issues of service and Sections 4 (2) and 27 (2) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act are expected to be made on or before November 10 by the petitioners while the respondents are required to submit their submissions on November 24.
Hearings will be conducted on November 30 and December 1, 2020.
