Guyana: Court of Appeal throws out latest challenge to 2020 election
The Court of Appeal Monday dismissed an appeal challenging the ruling of Chief Justice Roxane George, who had thrown out an election petition following the controversial 2020 general and regional elections.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court ruling that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) had a constitutional right to order a recount of the votes cast in the March 2, 2020, general and regional elections.
Justice Dawn Gregory said Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act empowered GECOM to remove any difficulty that had arisen or would arise in executing its constitutional functions.
The opposition coalition, A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Chance (APNU+AFC) elections petition, was dismissed over two years ago, challenging the recount.
Petitioners Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick had contended that Section 22 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act is unconstitutional and that Order No. 60 of 2020, which authorised the recount conducted, was invalid, null, void, and of no effect.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal said it did not find any violation of the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature to make it an unlawful and unconstitutional violation. The judges noted that then-president David Granger and then-opposition leader Bharrat Jagdeo had agreed that there should have been a recount.
The Court said that GECOM did not amend any legislation but set out a mechanism through Order 60 for a particular occasion and in a manner that “made modifications for the procedure to arrive at the results of the election.”
The Court of Appeal also hoped that the general basis of any constitutionally democratic society still holds good elections are won or lost in the ballot box and not in the judicial system.
“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,” said Justice Rishi Persaud.
Chancellor of the Judiciary, Yonette Cummings, said GECOM was expected to operate within the confines of its power to remove any difficulties, mainly when the Parliament had been in recess.
“I find no breach of the separation of powers doctrine.”
Regarding costs, attorney Roysdale Forde asked the Court of Appeal to consider that the matter was filed by “ordinary citizens,” even as the respondents had requested that the cost be taxed.
“These issues were of great public importance and constitutional value, the fact that it affected the elections and the need to have these issues clarified, even as we approach another election, and is likely to be a very contested election from the point of view of political parties and the interests of the country,” Forde argued, saying each party should bear its own cost.
But Trinidad-born Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes said the applicants should be ordered to pay costs because the matter was dealt with clearly and caused his client, the general secretary of the now-ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP), to incur further costs.
“Having had this matter determined in very clear terms, having regard to the limited power vested in the commission, nevertheless, the appellant saw it fit to appeal and, as I indicated, caused this respondent to incur further costs in all those circumstances. Despite this, this is a matter that raises a constitutional issue.”
The Court of Appeal has since adjourned to allow the judges to consider whether the appellants should pay costs and be taxed.
0 Comment