Court of Appeal dismisses opposition efforts for High Court re-hearing of election petition

Last Updated on Monday, 18 December 2023, 20:26 by Denis Chabrol

Guyana’s Court of Appeal on Monday dismissed efforts by the opposition to reinstate an election petition, agreeing with the High Court that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) had a constitutional right to order a recount of the votes cast in the March, 2020 general and regional elections.

Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory said Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act empowered GECOM to remove any difficulty that had arisen or would arise in the execution of its constitutional functions.

Justice Gregroy said she did not find any violation of separation of powers between the executive and the legislature to make it an unlawful and unconstitutional violation. The judges noted that then President David Granger and then Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo had agreed that there should have been a recount.

She said GECOM did not amend any legislation but set out a mechanism through Order 60 for a particular occasion and in a particular manner that “made modifications for the procedure to arrive at the results of the election.”

Justice Persaud remarked that it was his fervent hope that the general basis of any constitutionally democratic society still holds good elections are won or lost in the ballot box and not in the judicial system.

“A crucial pillar of any democratic society is one in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly, through a system of representation, usually including periodically held free and fair elections.

Chancellor of the Judiciary, Yonette Cummings said GECOM was expected to operate within the confines of its power to remove any difficulties, particularly at a time when the Parliament had been in recess. She also said that “I find no breach of the separation of powers doctrine.”

In terms of costs, Attorney-at-Law Roysdale Forde told the Guyana Court of Appeal that he believed that each party should bear its own cost because “these issues were of great public importance and constitutional value, the fact that it affected the elections and the need to have these issues clarified, even as we approach another election, and is likely to be a very contested elections from the point of view of political parties and the interests of the country.”

Attorney-at-Law Douglas Mendes, for the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), said the applicants should be ordered to pay costs because the matter was dealt with in clear terms and caused his client to incur further costs, there should be cost. “Having had this matter determined in very clear terms, having regard to the limited power that is vested in the commission, nevertheless, the appellant saw it fit to appeal and, as I indicated, caused this respondent to incur further costs in all of those circumstances. Despite this, this is a matter that raises a constitutional issue.”

The court asked the appellants to pay GY$150,000 in costs.