In a landmark decision, Court of Appeal on Monday upheld the constitutional right of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to order a recount of votes in the contentious March 2020 general and regional elections.
This ruling effectively dismissed the opposition’s efforts to reinstate an election petition.
Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory were pivotal in this decision. They cited Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, which empowers GECOM to address any difficulties in executing its constitutional functions.
Justice Gregory emphasised that there was no violation of the separation of powers, and the actions taken were specific to this election’s unique circumstances.
Central to the controversy was GECOM’s Order 60, a mechanism that modified procedures for achieving election results. This was a response to a mutual agreement for a recount by then President David Granger and Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo.
The court’s affirmation of GECOM’s actions underscores the importance of the electoral process and the commission’s role in safeguarding its integrity.
Justice Persaud, in his remarks, underscored the foundational principle of democracy: elections are won or lost at the ballot box, not in the judicial system. He eloquently stated, “A crucial pillar of any democratic society is one in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly, through a system of representation, usually including periodically held free and fair elections.”
This statement resonates with the core values of democratic societies worldwide, reaffirming the sanctity of the electoral process.
Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Yonette Cummings, further supported the decision, noting that GECOM was expected to operate within its powers, especially during a parliamentary recess. Her affirmation that no breach of the separation of powers doctrine occurred adds another layer of legal validation to GECOM’s actions.
A significant aspect of the court’s proceedings was the discussion of legal costs. Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, representing one party, argued that each should bear its own costs, citing the public importance and constitutional value of the issues at hand.
In contrast, Attorney-at-Law Douglas Mendes, representing the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), advocated that the applicants should pay the costs due to the incurred expenses and the clear determination of the matter.
The court has adjourned to deliberate on the issue of costs, considering whether they should be taxed and if the appellants are liable to pay.
This aspect of the case highlights the complexities and consequences of legal battles in high-stakes political disputes.
As Guyana moves towards another election, the Court of Appeal’s decision serves as a reminder of the critical role of independent judicial systems in upholding democratic processes. The eyes of the nation, and indeed the international community, remain keenly focused on Guyana’s adherence to democratic principles and the rule of law. (WiredJA).
