Former President of Guyana and Chairman of the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC), David Granger has informed the Supreme Court that he has no intention of opposing the Election Petitions challenging the validity of the results of the 2020 General and Regional Elections, as declared by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).
“Take Notice that I the undersigned respondent do not intend to oppose the above petition pursuant to the provisions of Section 27 (1) (a) and (2) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act Cap 1:04 and Rule 25 of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Rules Cap 1:04,” a Notice to the Court, signed by Granger, read. It was dated November 26, 2020.
Granger is being represented by former Attorney General, Basil Williams, SC
The former President is identified as the second named respondent in election petitions – Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick vs. the Chief Elections Officer and others (No. 88 of 2020) and Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse vs. the Chief Elections Officer and others (No. 99 of 2020).
His notice to the Court comes days before the Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George is scheduled to hear arguments on whether or not he is a necessary party to the petitions.
Petitioners Thorne and Bostwick are arguing that the APNU+AFC Representative is not a necessary party to Election Petition 88, and as such, it ought not be nullified or dismissed.
It was the acting Chief Justice, who, during last month’s Case Management Conference (CMC), had expressed concerns that reliefs sought in both Petitions 88 and 99 appear to be in conflict with Section 4 (2) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act, which states that a respondent is a person representing a list whose interest conflicts with the petitioners. Therefore, the issue at hand, is whether Granger’s interest conflicts with the petitioners.
In his submission, Senior Counsel Roysdale told the Court that Section 4 (2) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) has not been breached.
“It is submitted that the joinder of the Second Named Respondent as well as other Respondents who are representatives of the List of Candidates that were allocated any seats in the National Assembly are not necessary and or proper parties to the Election Petition. Their joinder amounts to a misjoinder. It is further submitted that a misjoinder does not constitute a contravention of Section 4 (2) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act, Cap. 1:04 and consequently cannot render the Election Petition liable to be dismissed,” Forde argued.
He further submitted that since Granger is not a proper party to the Election Petition, no issue arises with respect to Section 27 (2) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act. Forde forms part of a team of lawyers representing Thorne and Bostwick.
Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, who is representing Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, a Representative of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), intends to argue that Granger is a necessary respondent. The Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall also intends to make a case for the Election Petitions to be dismissed based on defective service on the First and Second Named Respondents. The first named respondent, in both cases, is the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield.
The Court will hear oral arguments on the preliminary issue on Monday, November 30 and Tuesday, December 1, 2020.
