The Court of Appeal, this morning, unanimously dismissed the Appeal filed by APNU+AFC against the decision of Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George SC which dismissed Election Petition No. 88, filed in the name of Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick, according to Attorney general Anil Nandlall.
In a statement, he said that the Court of Appeal upheld the state’s submissions and confirmed the decision of the Chief Justice that the Election Laws (Amendment) Act 2001 and Order 60 made thereunder, are not unconstitutional but lawful and valid; and consequently, the national recount of the ballots at the 2020 Elections conducted by GECOM was lawful, constitutional and not in breach of the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
“In short, the Appellants failed to discharge the heavy legal burden of establishing in law the unconstitutionality and illegality they alleged against the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, Order 60 and the national recount of the ballots done. That faced with the difficulties in declaring the final results of the 2020 Elections, GECOM exercised its constitutional duty enshrined in Article 162 of the Constitution and its statutory powers ensconced by the Election Laws (Amendment) Act and crafted Order 60 to overcome those difficulties”, he said.
Order 60 was created by virtue of Article 162 (1) of the Constitution and Section 22 of the ELAA, to resolve irregularities before declaring the results of the elections.
GECOM’s lawyer Anthony Astaphan had previously argued that the Chief Justice in her ruling nullifying the petition rightly pointed out that the authority controlled by parliament was in fact circumscribed. He argued that Section 22 is not unconstitutional and that the Chief Justice was correct in her findings.
He asserted that had it not been for Order 60 “…only God would have been able to tell us when the declaration (of the results) would have been made” adding that it was in the public interest that GECOM acted and ensured that such a declaration was made.
Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes who represented Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo—one of the Respondents in the action, in his submissions also maintained that Order 60 was properly and lawfully issued by GECOM using the power of Article 162 (1) of the Constitution and Section 22 of the ELAA. And even if Section 22 was determined to be unconstitutional Mendes pointed out that the elections was not “a sham” and in fact reflected the will of the Guyanese people.
“…so there is no basis to invalidate the elections,” he has maintained; pointing out that there is no challenge in the case to the recount exercise itself but rather the only issue raised is the constitutionality of Section 22.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Nandlall who was also a respondent in the matter had previously argued that the compass of the appeal was narrow as the singular issue was whether GECOM acted properly in delegating certain powers in Order 60 utilizing Section 22 of the ELAA.
His position was that GECOM acted lawfully and constitutionally in exercising its authority, contending that that issue has already been determined right up to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and as such it would be impossible for the presumption to be rebutted as there is no unconstitutionality in the germ of Order 60.
