-but loses candidate at elections petition
THE victorious People’s Progressive Party (PPP), headed by Dr 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 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 Messrs. J. O.F. Haynes; L. F. S. Burnham;  Clinton Wong; and Rudy Luck.             

It was proved at the trial that:
(a) 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, 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 of 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 four 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 four 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 four stations.  I accept it as proved.”

The Chief Justice also pointed out that it had 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, he said, “it became known during  polling hours  for whom any voter had cast his vote.  I am, however, quite satisfied that know
ledge 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.