Nandlall says no injunction has been granted against GECOM or CEO, meeting can proceed

Anil Nandlall
Anil Nandlall

Attorney Anil Nandlall this afternoon said that no Injunction or Order of Court has been granted against the Chief Election Officer (CEO) or GECOM.

In a post on his Facebook page, he said that an Application has been filed to the Court of Appeal seeking a number of Orders.

No date has been fixed for hearing.

He said that GECOM can proceed with its meeting today to finalise results.

His statement followed reports that CEO Keith Lowenfield had been injuncted from presenting his final report today on the March 2nd general elections.

According to the notice of motion seen by Stabroek News, it was filed by attorney Mayo Robertson on behalf of Eslyn David.

David is seeking the following orders:

a)           A  Declaration  that  the  GUYANA ELECTIONS COMMISSION has  failed  to  act  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  Order No.  60  of  2020  and  the  amended  Order  dated  the  29th day of  May,  2020,  in  that  the  GUYANA ELECTIONS COMMISSION  has  failed  to  determine a final credible count and or  the  credibility  of  the result  of  the  General  and  Regional  Elections held on the 2nd day  of  March,  2020,  as  required  to  do  by  Order  No. 60 of  2020  and  the  amended Order dated the 29th day of May, 2020.

 

b)           An  Order  that  there  be  an  interpretation  of  the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution of Guyana.

 

c)            An  Order restraining the Chief Elections Officer from complying with the Direction of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission as set out in a Letter dated the 16th day of June, 2020,to submit to the Guyana Elections Commission an Elections Report under Article 177 (2) ( b) of the Constitution of Guyana without the Guyana Elections Commission determining the final credible count and or the credibility of  the General  and  Regional  Elections  held  on the 2nd day of March, 2020, as required by the Order No. 60 of 2020 and the amended Order of the 29th day of March, 2020.

 

d)           An  Order  restraining the Chief Elections Officer from complying with the Direction of the Chairman of the Guyana Election Commission as set out in a Letter dated the 16th  day of June, 2020,  to submit an Elections Report under Section 96 of the Representation of the People  Act without the Guyana Elections Commission  determining the final credible count and or the credibility of  the result  of  the  General  and  Regional  Elections  held  on the 2nd day of March, 2020, as required by the Order No. 60 of 2020 and the amended Order of the 29th day of March, 2020.

 

e)           An  Order restraining the Chief Elections Officer from submitting  to  the Guyana Elections Commission an Elections Report under Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution containing votes which are not credible within the meaning of Order No. 60 of 2020.

 

f)             An  Order restraining  the Chief Elections Officer from submitting  to  the  Elections Commission an Elections  Report under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act, Chapter 1:03  containing votes which are not valid and credible.

 

g)           Such  further  and  or  other  Order  as  may  be  just.

David’s application for orders mirrors the public case that has been presented by APNU+AFC in relation to the recount of votes.

A court marshal visited GECOM today to serve the documents.

In a comment on the action, Nandlall said:

“This is a nuisance-value litigation. It has absolutely no prospects of success. It raises no serious questions of law. It is absolutely frivolous and vexatious and will be dismissed.

“It is filed by one lawyer, who hardly has a practice in Guyana. It must be ignored by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). The nation’s important business cannot be stalled on the basis of such legal frivolity. It confirms APNU/AFC’s pandemonium!

“It is simply designed to stall and must be rejected by GECOM. The Chairperson, an experienced former Court of Appeal Judge, would clearly see it for what it is: specious, wholly without merit and an abuse of the process of the Court”.