The 24-hour stay of the ruling of the Appeal Court, which dismissed a challenge to the use of the results of the national recount to make a final declaration from the March 2nd polls, has expired with no further action being taken as yet.
Attorney Roysdale Forde, who represents the appellant Misenga Jones and who requested the stay to “consider the way forward,” told Stabroek News this afternoon that no decision has been made about whether to approach the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
In a unanimous judgment, Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud and High Court Judge Priya Sewnarine-Beharry on Thursday dismissed Jones’ appeal as well as the cross appeal identical to hers filed by Attorney General Basil Williams. The granting of the stay, which was done by majority decision, had been objected to by counsel for several respondents, including the lawyer for Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chair Claudette Singh, Kim Kyte-Thomas, who voiced her frustration at the “untenable” moves to frustrate the work of the elections body.
The appellate court affirmed last week Monday’s ruling of acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire that it is the results from the recount and nothing else which must be used to make an official declaration
The court also upheld the chief justice’s decision that Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield is under the direction and control of the Commission and must, therefore, act in accordance with its instructions.
Jones, believed to be a surrogate for the APNU+AFC, had contended that the Commission and its Chairperson could only make a declaration from the report submitted by Lowenfield based on declarations he received from the Returning Officers (ROs) of each of the 10 electoral districts as opposed to the results of the recount.
Following the ruling on Thursday, APNU+AFC campaign manager Joseph Harmon maintained that when the matter goes to GECOM that only valid votes will be counted in the final declaration made by the Chairman of GECOM.
Harmon appeared to make thinly veiled accusations against the three members of the bench, claiming he did not expect much given the composition of the panel and that their ruling was not “sound in law.”
