High Court dismisses Attorney General’s ‘no-jurisdiction’ arguments on local govt boundaries case

Last Updated on Monday, 15 October 2018, 17:41 by Denis Chabrol

High Court Judge, Gino Persaud on Monday dismissed Attorney General, Basil Williams’ argument that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear a case on changes to local government constituency boundaries and a legal challenge could only be mounted after the polls.

Justice Persaud rejected Williams’ argument on the ground that the case brought by People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC)-nominated Guyana Elections Commissioner, Bibi Shadick  was about changes to the boundaries of a number of Neighbourhood Democratic Councils (NDCs) instead of Article 146 (1) of the Local Authorities Election Act that states that the validity of the elections procedure can only be contested after the election by way of an election petition.

The High Court has asked the Attorney General to produce his defence by October 22 and written submissions by October 29 before a date is fixed for hearing and decision before the Local Government Elections.

In the court papers, government had said GECOM has already spent a “substantial portion” of the  GY$1.2 billion that have been allocated for the local polls for the election of town councillors and neighbourhood/ village councils.High Court Judge Persaud was also asked to consider that GECOM has already begun implementing statutory timelines – registration from May 21 to July 18, 2018; Nomination Day on September 21, voting by the disciplined services on November 2 and voting by the wider public on November 12.

The respondents in the case are Minister of Local Government, Ronald Bulkan and the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield.

Shadick challenges Minister Bulkan’s power to determine the name, boundaries and a number of members in the Neighbourhood Democratic Councils in Moruka/ Phoenix Park, Kitty/Providence, Nile Cozier, Lamaha/ Yarowkabra, Hauraruni/ Yarowkabra, Plegt Anker/Kortberaad and Wyburg/Caracas.

“In creating new Neighbourhood Democratic Councils and modifying and/or re-demarcating the existing internal boundaries of existing constituencies the Respondents not only acted unlawfully but they did so unfairly, capriciously, whimsically and in a manner to prejudice and skew the elections in favour of one major political party and against the other,” she said in court papers seen by Demerara Waves Online News and filed on her behalf by Attorneys-at-Law, Anil Nandlall, Marcia Nadir-Sharma, Manoj Narayan, Sasha S. Mahadeo-Narayan, Rajendra R. Jaigobin and Anuradha Deodasingh.

Shadick wants the High Court to find that  Bulkan “has unilaterally, and without consultations with any of the electors and stakeholders inclusive of the major political parties likely to vote and contest the local government elections in those areas and without stating any reasons, made changes to the number of seats in 14 local authority areas.

Shadick, who represents the opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP) on the seven-member Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), said Bulkan’s failure to abide by the Local Democratic Organs Act, Cap. 28:09 to identify by name, boundaries and number of members of each of those councils is “unlawful, illegal, in violation of the Local Democratic Organ Act, Cap. 28:09, in excess of jurisdiction, failed to satisfy or observe procedures required by law, contrary to law, null, void and of no effect”.

Similarly, Shadick wants the High Court to find that Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield broke the law by failing to fix the exterior boundaries of those same areas on the grounds of excess of jurisdiction, failure to satisfy or observe procedures required by law, abuse of power, illegal and constitutes a usurpation of the statutory functions of the Minister of Communities.

The GECOM Commissioner also wants the High Court to quash a decision by  the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield to demarcate and re-demarcate constituency boundaries within those Local Authority Areas without first holding consultations with the electors and stakeholders inclusive of the major political parties likely to vote and contest the election of councilors in the said Local Authority Areas. Shadick’s grounds are that Lowenfield’s decision is unreasonable, irregular or improper exercise of discretion, in bad faith, improper or irregular consideration,  with the policy of the Local Democratic Organs Act, and in violation of Article 13 of the Constitution, unlawful, unconstitutional, void and of no effect.

Similarly, Shadick wants the High Court to find that Chief Elections Officer broke the law by failing to fix the exterior boundaries of those same areas on the grounds of excess of jurisdiction, failure to satisfy or observe procedures required by law, abuse of power, illegal and constitutes a usurpation of the statutory functions of the Minister of Communities.

The GECOM Commissioner also wants the High Court to quash a decision by  the Chief Elections Officer to demarcate and re-demarcate constituency boundaries within those Local Authority Areas without first holding consultations with the electors and stakeholders inclusive of the major political parties likely to vote and contest the election of councilors in the said Local Authority Areas. Shadick’s grounds are that Lowenfield’s decision is unreasonable, irregular or improper exercise of discretion, in bad faith, improper or irregular consideration,  with the policy of the Local Democratic Organs Act, and in violation of Article 13 of the Constitution, unlawful, unconstitutional, void and of no effect.