THE election petition that was filed in the High Court by the Alliance for Change (AFC) following its claim of being cheated by the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) in the 2006 elections, should be struck out because it did not comply with several technical requirements.
This is the view expressed by Attorney-at-law and Member of Parliament (MP) Mr. Anil Nandlall in a television interview with the National Communications Network (NCN) last Tuesday.
Nandlall explained that after the 2006 general elections, the AFC filed an election petition in the High Court in which it contended that it won the Linden seat which was allocated to Prime Minister Samuel Hinds.
He said the AFC initially claimed that the statement of Oath submitted to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) was inadequate and when it was properly tabulated it was of the view that it won by simple arithmetic calculation.
Nandlall said while he appeared for the PPP/C, Mr. Ashton Chase appeared on behalf of GECOM.
Nandlall said he is of the view that the law supports him and Mr. Chase on the position that when the High Court presides over an election petition, it is exercising a special jurisdiction and is not sitting in its ordinary, legal or equitable jurisdiction where it has a plentitude of inherent unlimited power.
According to him, he contended along with Chase that the jurisdiction with an election petition is unique.
“When a high court judge sits in an election petition, he is not sitting as an ordinary high court judge,he is sitting in a special jurisdiction. When there is any non compliance with any of the procedures outlined by the relevant elections laws, then that judge has no power to waive such,” he said.
The essence of their contention, Nandlall said, was that whenever there is non compliance with procedural requirements, the results are fatal.
He mentioned, too, that the petitioner in the election petition was guilty and that he highlighted this to the judge, pointing out to him where similar breaches occurred. He added that they were able to persuade the judge that he had no other choice but to strike out the petition on the basis of those non compliances.
Nandlall further mentioned that the AFC did not serve the petition within the time prescribed and that it did not file an affidavit of service which is what is required under the election laws.
He pointed out that they filed the affidavit of service ten months after, and the rule says it should have been filed as soon as was reasonably practicable after the filing and serving of the election petition.
The lawyer explained that many other arguments were advanced such as the fact that the petition is required to be advertised in the official gazette and it must be done so in an expeditious manner.
That, he said, was not complied with because the election petition was advertised months after it was filed and the AFC further breached the rule that what was to be advertised was the election petition itself.