Attorney at Law Anil Nandlall has written to the Registrar of the Supreme Court seeking to be informed of any legal challenge to the just concluded National Recount of votes.
“Should any legal proceedings be filed in the Supreme Court of Judicature in relation to, or in connection with, or in any manner whatsoever, touching and concerning the National Recount…I hereby respectfully request an opportunity to be heard before any Order of Court is made or any relief is granted by any Court in the Supreme Court of Judicature in respect of any such legal proceedings,” Nandlall said in the brief letter which was copied to the Registrar of the High Court and Court of Appeal.
The former Attorney General noted in the letter that he represents the People’s Progressive Party/Civic, “an interested party that would be aggrieved or affected by any such order or relief.”
The letter is a pre-emptive attempt to block the incumbent APNU+AFC from moving to the Courts ex parte to stall the recount process which has shown the PPP/C winning the March 2 elections.
While the tabulation has shown the party gaining 233, 336 compared to the Coalition’s 217,920, the incumbent has argued that the elections were rife with fraud.
President David Granger who leads the coalition has publicly stated that the elections were manipulated.
“Everyone is aware of numerous reports of irregularities including unstamped ballots, deceased and migrant voters and missing poll books. Those irregularities appear to have been committed intentionally, not accidentally, and demonstrate a pattern of manipulation of the electoral process,” he said in an address to the nation.
His party later claimed that there had been massive fraud and said it was putting GECOM “on notice” that illegal votes cannot produce a valid result.
According to the party, numerous sealed ballots boxes, exclusively in PPP stronghold areas, when opened, were missing all relevant documents legally required to legitimise the process.
The pattern is clear – where the APNU+AFC won, the documents are in the boxes, but where the PPP “won”, the documents are missing they said before concluding that there is no option but for GECOM to reject all ballots, in all 10 districts, that cannot be validated.
Nandlall however has argued that GECOM cannot sit in judgement of itself.
“GECOM has no jurisdiction, no power [and ] no authority to pronounce on the credibility of this process. GECOM cannot judge itself. The Constitution gives the High Court exclusive power to deal with issue of credibility,” he argued while stressing that the issues raised have to be settled via an elections petition which can only be brought after a declaration of results.
