Suffered loss of candidate at elections petition

THE VICTORIOUS People’s Progressive Party (PPP) headed by Cheddi Jagan won the 1953 General Elections but suffered the loss of a candidate through an election petition.
The petition was brought by James Graham, a registered voter in respect of the election of Frank Obermuller Van Sertima for the Georgetown North Electoral District.

The hearing by Chief Justice, Edward Peter Stubbs Bell, lasted 18 days after which the court found in favour of Graham, to the effect that the election was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Ordinance, 1953, relating to the secrecy of the ballot and as a result thereof the result of the election was affected.

In his decision the Chief Justice had said “In the result I feel obliged to declare the election held in that district on the 27th April, 1953, to be void and I declare accordingly. I will certify that declaration to the Governor as required by the law.
“This is no victory for any political party. This Court is not concerned with the struggles of political parties, but is only concerned to ensure that elections are conducted in accordance with the law.”

At the hearing the Petitioner was represented by Mr. H.C. Humphreys, Q.C., C. R. Browne with Amina Sankar.
Appearing for the Respondent, were, Mr. J. O.F. Haynes, Mr. L. F. S. Burnham, Clinton Wong and Rudy Luck.

It was proved at the trial:
(a) That at each of the four polling stations in the area the arrangements for voting were faulty and lent themselves to the secrecy of the ballot being violated.

(b) At all the Polling Stations it was possible for the Polling Agents to have seen each voter as he went through the act of voting as distinct from seeing for whom he voted.

(c) 295 ballot tickets were marked by Presiding Officers. Knowledge of that fact became known in the Electoral District and some voters expressed the fear that it afforded a means of its becoming known for whom a voter had voted.
Section 82 of the Legislative Council (Elections) Ordinance 1945 reads as follows:
82 (1) The election of a candidate as a member of the Council ( Member of the House of Assembly) shall be declared void in an election petition if any of the following grounds be proved:-

(a) that by reason of general bribery , general treating, or general intimidation or other misconduct or other circumstances whether similar to those before enumerated or not the majority of voters were or might have been prevented from electing the candidate whom they preferred.

(b) If it appears that the election was not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in this Ordinance and that such non-compliance affected the result of the election;

(c) That a corrupt or illegal practice was committed in connection with the election; by the candidate or with his knowledge or consent , or by any agent of the candidate;

(d) That the candidate was at the time of his election a person not qualified or a person disqualified for election as a Member.”

The Chief Justice held that the contrivance used at the election was not a compartment of the kind contemplated by the Ordinance and Regulations. In addition the principles of the representation of the People Ordinance, 1953 and the mode thereunder were infringed and the election was not really conducted under the existing election laws and such non-compliance affected the result of the election.

Delivering his judgment Chief Justice Bell said, “This petition is presented by Mr. James Graham, a registered voter against the return of the respondent Frank Obermuller Van Sertima, a member of the House of Assembly for the Electoral District No. 13 (Georgetown North) at the General Elections held on the 27th April, 1953 in the Colony.

“The General Election of the 27th April, 1953, from which this petition has arisen, was the first General Election under the New Constitution recently granted to British Guiana by Her Majesty’s British Guiana (Constitution) Order in Council 1953 . The election presented the law Officers and the Registration Officer ( Mr. H.R. Harewood) who was responsible for the general conduct of the election, with a number of difficult decisions to make both as regards the content of the law regulating the election and the administrative arrangements which were necessary to carry out the law.

“The election was the first one to be held with full adult suffrage and not the least of their problems was to devise satisfactory for the casting of votes by a population very many of whom had never voted in their lives before, and very many of whom could not read and write.

“The existence of such illiteracy is established by what Mr, Harewood, the Registration Officer , said in evidence namely that he had no reason to doubt that the illiteracy rate amongst East Indians in British Guiana was still over 40%. He went on to say :-
“When we set up the election machinery we did not contemplate ballot tickets being left outside ballot boxes and between them and on the floor. It was quite a surprise .The fact that we had such a high rate of illiteracy controlled the type ; of mechanical arrangements we had to make. About two thirds of the total number of voters had not voted before at any election.

“It did not occur to us to have the Poll Clerk come to the compartment and see that the vote had been put into the box, We did contemplate having the vote cast behind a screen with a Poll Clerk within the screen but we abandoned that as it would lead to the many difficulties”.

The Chief Justice went on to state that the election authorities had reproduced as accurately as possible the conditions as they were on election day for inspection by the court and lawyers on both sides.

The Chief Justice who along with lawyers and other court officials visited the 4 Polling Stations, added, “I am of the opinion that at each of those four Polling Stations it could have been possible for Polling Agents (either by accident or of set purpose) to have seen how the ballot boxes were grouped together; behind the screen; what position each had occupied in relation to its fellow; what was the position occupied by each box in relation to the length of the screen behind which they were placed.

“My reason for holding those views ; are these: each of the 4 rooms in which the actual voting compartment was placed was quite small with the result that when seated in their places, the Polling Agents were in no case at any greater distance than say an average of 20 feet from the voting compartment. It shows (at least in my view) that the arrangements were faulty and lent themselves to the possibility of the secrecy of the ballot being violated at those 4 stations. I accept it as proved”, the C.J. had said.

The Chief Justice also pointed out that it has been established beyond any doubt, that 295 ballot tickets were marked by Presiding Officers in Electoral District No. 13 on Polling Day, the 27th April, 1953, with the registered number of the voter or some other mark whereby the voter might have been identified.

I have no reason to believe, however that as a result of that irregularity it became known during polling hours for whom any voter had cast his vote. I am, however quite satisfied that knowledge of the fact that tickets were being so irregulary marked became known in Electoral District N. 13 (Georgetown North) from early in the morning of Polling day and that a number of persons in that district were openly talking about that irregularity and expressing fears that it afforded a means of its becoming known for whom a voter had cast his vote.

After viewing all the circumstances including the various irregularities the Chief Justice declared the North Georgetown election void.