Appeal challenging High Court ruling to be heard tomorrow

GEORGETOWN (CMC):

The substantive arguments in the appeal filed by private citizen Misenga Jones challenging the ruling of the High Court will be heard tomorrow by Appeal Court Judge President Dawn Gregory, along with Justices Priya Seenarine-Beharry and Rishi Persaud.

During the virtual case management conference on Wednesday, the three-judge panel said the court is expecting the submissions from the appellant by midday on Thursday.

Jones, through her attorney, Mayo Robertson, is challenging what she said is an erroneous judgement by Chief Justice Roxane George when she dismissed the case filed by Jones on Monday.

ELECTION CHALLENGE

Jones had challenged the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM) move to make a declaration of the March 2 elections, using votes tabulated by the national recount process, which, she said, was ruled unconstitutionally by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on July 8.

George, however, ruled that the recount data should be used to decide the winner of the elections.

In her notice of appeal, Jones laid down over 20 grounds on which she said the High Court erred in its judgment.

This included the constitutionality of Section 22 of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act, which she said was res judicata (matter decided).

Jones had argued that Section 22, which was relied on for the crafting of the Order 60 of 2020, or the National Recount Order, is unconstitutional – in contravention of Article 170 of the constitution – as it empowered the commission to craft a law when it remains a non-legislative body.

Jones has also asked the appellate court to strike down the ruling of the chief justice, which said GECOM’s Chair, Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh, and/or the commission did not act outside of their constitutional and statutory powers.

Justice Singh on three occasions directed CEO Keith Lowenfield to submit his report based on the numbers emanating from national recount and in compliance with Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act and Article 177 (2) (b) of the constitution.

The CEO had, however, expressed concerns that the request was unconstitutional.

Respondents in the case include GECOM Chair Justice Singh and the attorney general.