Al-Rawi’s attorney: UNC election petitioner not fair-minded

Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi - Angelo Marcelle
Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi - Angelo Marcelle

SAN Fernando West voter Dr Shevanand Gopeesingh is not a fair-minded and informed observer and should not be treated as such, submitted Reginald Armour SC, attorney for MP for the constituency Faris Al-Rawi.

Armour told Justices of Appeal Gregory Smith, Peter Rajkumar and Mark Mohammed, who are hearing Gopeesingh’s application to have the court set aside the appellate court’s ruling in its election petition challenge, that Gopeesingh, on deposition, said he was a UNC activist and held positions with the party.

“He is a UNC member and he candidly tells you he is not a fair-minded observer,” Armour said.

As he urged the judges to take a cautionary approach when treating with the arguments of the petitioner, Armour reminded them that what was before them was not a section 137 trial of the Chief Justice.

The judges have reserved their decision at the end of the arguments by both sides on Tuesday. Three days had initially been set aside for the hearing of the matter.

Archie on the panel of judges which dismissed the election petitions in October 2016.

The UNC filed the application on April 15 seeking to have the court’s ruling in the election petition matters set aside on the ground of the apparent bias of the Chief Justice who is being accused of failing to disclose he corresponded with the prime minister on recommendations he made to the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) for several people.

This comes more than two years after the party’s original legal challenge to PNM wins in six parliamentary constituencies was dismissed.

The UNC had challenged the results in the constituencies of San Fernando West, Tunapuna, St Joseph, Toco/Sangre Grande, Moruga/Tableland and La Horquetta/Talparo. All the challenges were dismissed.

Armour said Gopeesingh’s subjective fears were not relevant for the objective test of determining whether the fair-minded and informed observer would believe the CJ was biased at the election petition appeal because of his recommendations for public housing for “needy and deserving people.”

“The complaints are not justified,” Armour said as he urged the three judges to reject Gopeesingh’s “apparent bias” argument. “The test is not ‘any’ possibility but a ‘real’ possibility on the part of the fair minded and informed observer,” he added. Armour also pointed to Archie’s response to Gopeesingh’s pre-action protocol letter in which he admitted to making recommendations but denied he lobbied anyone. ‘There is no evidence of lobbying on the part of the Chief Justice. He may have recommended persons but there is no evidence of him lobbying,” Armour insisted. He said in looking at the evidence, Gopeesingh’s case was grounded on “conjecture and speculation.”

Representing Gopeesingh are British Queen’s Counsel Richard Clayton, who, along with Anand Ramlogan, SC, Che Dindial and Ganesh Saroop. Also representing Al Rawi are Ravi Nanga, Michael Quamina and Zelica Haynes-Soo Hon while Deborah Peake, along with attorneys Alana Bissessar and Ravi Heffes-Doon are representing the returning officer.

Comments

"Al-Rawi’s attorney: UNC election petitioner not fair-minded"

More in this section