-Election voided due to non-compliance with law
PEOPLE’S Progressive Party (PPP) Parliamentarian Frank Obermuller Van Sertima, who was elected to the House of Assembly after being successful at the polls at the 1953 General Elections, lost the Georgetown North electoral district seat through an election petition brought by voter, James Graham. Chief Justice Edward Peter Stubbs Bell, who heard the petition, declared the election to that district void on the ground that there was non-compliance with the Election Law.

‘No victory’
But the Chief Justice made it quite clear: “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.”
The General Election of April 27, 1953, from which the petition had arisen, was the first general election under the new constitution granted to British Guiana by Her Majesty’s British Guiana (Constitution) Order-in-Council 1953.
The grounds upon which the petitioner sought to void the election were 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.”

And, 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 of the polling stations, it was possible for the polling agents to have seen each voter as he went through the action of voting, as distinct from seeing for whom he voted;
(c) 295 ballot tickets were marked by presiding officers. That fact became known in the electoral district, and some voters expressed fear that it afforded a means of becoming known for whom a voter had voted.

‘Void’
In his judgment, the Chief Justice observed that Section 82 of the Legislative Council (Elections) Ordinance 1945 specified:
(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 may 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.”

In declaring the election void, the Chief Justice declared that the contrivance used at the election was not a compartment of the kind contemplated by the ordinance and regulations.
In addition, he said that 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.
At the hearing of the petition, the Petitioner James Graham was represented by lawyers H.C. Humphreys, QC., C.R. Browne and Amina Sankar.
Mr. JOF Haynes, associated with Mr. LFS Burnham, Clinton Wong and R. Luck, appeared for the Respondent, FO Van Sertima.
During the trial, which lasted 18 days, evidence had been led by both sides. At the end, the Chief Justice noted that the difficulties which the petition presented were difficulties of law and not of fact.
In his judgment, Chief Justice Bell had noted that the 1953 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.
According to him, the election was the first one to be held with full adult suffrage, and not the least of their problems was to devise satisfactory machinery 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 Chief Justice went on to say that because of the illiteracy of so many of the prospective voters, the Representation of the People Ordinance 1953 (Ordinance No. 5 of 1953) made it obligatory for each candidate for election to have a symbol; that symbol and a photograph of the candidate appeared on each of that candidate’s ballot boxes.
“The responsible authority had a difficult task, and so far as I can judge, they seemed to have given much thought and care to the devising of the machinery for conducting the election,” Chief Justice Bell emphasised.
The Chief Justice referred to evidence in relation to four of the polling stations – The polling station at Mr. Hamlet’s residence, The polling station at the Universal Garage, the polling station at Mr. Robinson’s residence, and the polling station at Dr. Foo’s residence.
He 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; and what was the position occupied by each box in relation to the length of the screen behind which they were placed.
“In my view, the arrangements were faulty, and lent themselves to the possibility of the secrecy of the ballot being violated at those four stations,” the Chief Justice declared.
Chief Justice Bell stated 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.
“Those ballot tickets were properly rejected at the count. 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 irregularly marked became known in Electoral District No. 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. It has been proved to me that two registered voters of that district – Johanna Thorpe and Conrad Smith — refrained from casting their votes in the electoral district on the 27th April, 1953, because each of them had heard of that irregular practice and feared that, by reason of it, it might become known for whom she or he respectively had cast her or his vote if she or he had in fact voted,” the CJ declared.
Declaring the election for the particular electoral district void, Chief Justice Bell said: “After long and careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion:
(a) That in view of the principles of the ordinance which I consider to have been infringed, the election was not really conducted under the existing election laws, and that it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that such non-compliance affected the result of the election;
(b) That the result of the circulation in Electoral District No. 13 (Georgetown North) of the report about the improper marking of ballot tickets was a circumstance which may have prevented the majority of the voters from electing the candidate whom they preferred.
(c) “In the result, then, 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.
(d) “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,” CJ Bell ruled.