Attorney General asks High Court to strike out APNU+AFC election petition because David Granger was served late

Last Updated on Thursday, 19 November 2020, 17:10 by Denis Chabrol

Attorney General Anil Nandlall has asked the High Court to strike out one of two election petitions challenging the results of the March 2, 2020 general and regional elections on the grounds that it was served to APNU+AFC Representative of the List, David Granger  four days late.

Mr. Nandlall told News-Talk Radio 103.1 FM/ Demerara Waves Online News that it is a “matter of strict law” that if the petitioners failed to personally serve a respondent late, “as a consequence of this non-compliance” the petion “ought to be dismissed.”

In court papers released by the Attorney General, he said the petitioners violated Section 8 of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act Chapter I :04 and Rule 9(I ) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections).

Applying then Chief Justice Ian Chang’s guidance, Mr. Nandlall said Sunday 20th September 2020, “cannot be reckoned in the
computation of time, so that the end of the five day timeline, for the purposes of service herein and the date on which all Respondents were to be served was Monday 21st September 2020.”

The Attorney General said he and his team support the submissions made by Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, representing People’s Progressive Party (PPP) General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo that “this petition was served contrary to the law “in so far as there is no evidence in respect of the time at which this petition was served upon the several respondents.

The High Court is being asked to determine whether service was properly effected on Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield and Mr. Granger and

“Wc have bccn unable to unearth any authority where failure to serve in the prescribed time and failure to apply to extend time to serve was not fatal to an election petition,” states the court documents.

The Attorney General said period no application had bccn made to the Court by the petitioners seeking an extension of time to serve the second named respondent and thc petitioners could not take it upon themselves to extend the time at whim.