…Jeremie tells CJ as he made a case for the Court to proceed with Election Petitions
By Svetlana Marshall
Maintaining that there is no issue with regards to “defective service” in the Election Petition Cases, Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel John Jeremie pleaded with Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George to rely on the evidence contained in the Affidavit of Service, in arriving at her decision, and not on the inferences made by Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, and the Attorney General Anil Nandlall.
The Chief Justice (ag) will hand down her decision on January 18, 2021 at 13:30hrs.
During his virtual presentation before Chief Justice George on Tuesday, Jeremie, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners in the cases – Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick vs. the Chief Elections Officer and others (No. 88) and Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse vs. the Chief Elections Officer and others (No. 99) – told the Court that Mendes and the Attorney General have offered little evidence to prove their claim of defective service.
In a bid to have Election Petition 99 dismissed, Mendes, the attorney representing Bharrat Jagdeo – the fourth named respondent, has argued that the Petition Documents: Notice of Presentation of Petition, and the Notice of Security for Cost, were not properly served on the 1st, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th named Respondents.
Jeremie said that while Mendes has argued that there is inconsistency between the Affidavits of Service and the Acknowledgments or Returns of Service, with regards to the petition documents and who effected same, the Court must rely on the Affidavits, in accordance Rule 9 (5) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Rules. In at least one instant, the Affidavit states that Nurse effected service on the one of Respondents but the Acknowledgement of Service, says Trevor Chan.
“What is right and correct is that you treat the evidence given under Oath, the evidence that is contained in the statutory document, the Affidavit of Service, duly filed in these proceedings as evidence of service,” Jeremie told the Court.
Additionally, both Mendes and the Attorney General have argued that there was late service of the petition documents on former President David Granger – the 2nd named Respondent. However, Jeremie directed the Court’s attention to the Affidavit of Service and the Supplementary Affidavit filed by Nurse.
Initial court documents indicated that Granger was served on September 25, however, Nurse, in her Supplementary Affidavit, said service was made on September 18. The Petitioner explained that while she had served Granger on September 18, it was not until September 24, 2020, while preparing her Affidavit of Service that she realized that he had not signed an Acknowledgment of Service.
According to her, on the very day, she returned to Granger and requested that the acknowledgement be signed, but she had not realized that Granger had placed an incorrect date. The Senior Counsel told the Court that all of the respondents, with the exception of the 4th Respondent, in the case were served between 16th and 18th of September. He said the mix-up in dates is not indication of late service on Granger but rather a clerical error.
He submitted that if Mendes and Nandlall are suggesting criminal wrong doing or fraud on the part of the Petitioner, they must prove it, but in the absence of irrefutable evidence to support such a claim, the Court must reply on the Supplementary Affidavit filed by Nurse.
Interjecting, the acting Chief Justice told Jeremie that the Supplementary Affidavits are also contradictory.
“They alleged that petition documents were served on September, 18th but then they said they went to the 2nd Respondent on September 24th, and the Acknowledgement of Service, apparently signed by the 2nd Respondent is dated September 25th,” Chief Justice George pointed out.
In response, Jeremie told the Court that Granger signed the wrong date. “It’s an error, My Lady,” he told the Chief Justice. But the explanation proffered by Jeremie did not sit well with the Chief Justice, who noted that the entire ordeal appears “strange.”
Jeremie maintained that all the requirements set out the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act and Rules were met, and as such, the Court should proceed with the hearing of the substantive matter.
