Chief Justice to rule today on election injunction

GEORGETOWN: Acting Chief Justice Roxanne George-Wiltshire on Saturday said she would deliver a preliminary ruling on Sunday as to whether an injunction granted to the opposition People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) should be permanent as the two main political entities here seek legal redress in the latest twist to Monday’s regional and general elections for which no clear winner has yet to be announced.

“This morning I had indicated that we would work tomorrow and Monday, but as you know Monday is a holiday here in Guyana. I am now amending that. I will rule on this point tomorrow at 1.30 pm…and whichever way it goes we would take the break on the Monday to resume on Tuesday.

“But as it stands right now I will rule on this preliminary issue tomorrow. I doubt it will be a very length ruling,” she said, after hearing arguments for several hours from the attorneys.

Lawyers representing the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is challenging the injunction granted to the PPP/C ordering GECOM to verify the results of Region Four that the ruling coalition, A Partnership for National Unity plus the Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) said showed that it won Monday’s regional and general elections.

On Thursday, GECOM released to the media, results for Region Four, and if certified would result in the ruling coalition defeating the main opposition party by more than 59,000 votes and securing another term in office..

GECOM public relations officer, Yolanda Ward, had forwarded without comment images of Statutory Declaration Form 24. The Form shows the incumbent APNU+AFC securing 136,335 votes while the PPP/C has earned 77,258 a difference of 59,077.

GECOM attorney, Senior Counsel Neil Boston is arguing that the PPP/C had been premature in going to the High Court asking it to intervene in an electoral process that has not yet been completed.

“It must be dealt with by way of an election petition and that election petition only arises after the elections. So any issue as to whether the election has been conducted lawfully or whether there is any act or omission which may or might affect the results has to be dealt with by an election petition.

“Our contention is what they are complaining is that the act of the Returning Officer for Region Four has affected the outcome of the elections, because they said the officer from GECOM was reading from a spread sheet and their case is whenever she read a particular statement of poll when they correspond it to their statement of poll there are discrepancies.”

But he argued that the position of the opposition can only be argued in an election court in keeping with the provisions of the Constitution.

But Trinidad-based Senior Counsel, Douglas Mendes, disagreed saying “we are not asking the Court to intervene (in the elections)…and it is no comfort to anyone to say, as my learned friend has suggested “well let us suffer an election official who on the evidence is apparently deliberately flouting section 84 (1), let us suffer that, let us have an election declared, let us have a government put into power which on the evidence should not be there because you can then launch an election petition and let that go through the normal processes of the court to reverse it at some point in time down the road.”

He argued that the wisdom of a ruling by a former chief justice here “is to say that in order for the public to have confidence in the entire process, to have confidence in whatever result is declared, let us ensure that there’s transparency, let us ensure that the public officials are performing their duties in accordance with the Act that the public will go knowing, whatever the results may be, they certainly cannot question whether the Act to its letter has been followed.”

Mendes said the Act must be interpreted in favour “of the Court carrying out its constitutional duty of ensuring that public officials comply with the law.

Mendes argued that the injunctions do not challenge the results of the elections because they are not yet known and that they do not challenge the election itself.

“What these proceedings seek to do is to progress the election, to facilitate the election in accordance with the law irrespective of what the results might be,” he added. –CMC