By Ariana Gordon
ATTORNEY General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams on Wednesday argued before Chief Justice (ag) Yonette Cummings-Edwards that the application made by People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Executive Secretary, Zulfikar Mustapha to quash the election of Mayor of the Municipality of Mabaruma and the Chairpersons of five Neighbourhood Democratic Councils (NDCs) was null and void.Mustapha, through his Attorney Anil Nandlall, filed six separate actions by way of Prerogative Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus praying for Orders Nisi to be issued to the Minister of Communities, Ronald Bulkan to show cause why the Orders Nisi should not be made absolute in each of the actions.
In his oral presentation, the Attorney General argued that the petition by Mustapha has no locus standi, noting that the applicant in the case was not a registered voter nor was he a candidate at the March 29, Local Government Elections in the six Local Authority Areas (LAA), within the meaning of the Local Authorities Elections Act Chapter 28:03.
According to Section 147 of the Act, “an election petition may be presented by a registered voter in the Local Authority Area for which the election was held or by a candidate at the election”.
Mustapha is challenging the election of Mayor of the Municipality of Mabaruma and the Chairpersons of the Five Neighbourhood Democratic Councils (NDC) (Giraltar/Fyrish NDC, Woodlands/Farm NDC, Industry/ Plaisance NDC, Malgre — Tout/Meer-Zorgen NDC and Woodlands/ Bel Air NDC) by way of a Prerogative Writ.
According to Williams, the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear or determine the matters before it. He said the Court must first be satisfied that it has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter brought before it.
The Attorney General said Section 13 (9) of the Municipal and District Councils Act Chapter 28:01 states that any question whether a person has been validly elected to be Mayor or Deputy Mayor shall be determined by the Court in accordance with Part IV of the Local Authorities (Elections) Act.
He argued that upon proper construction of Section 13 (9) of the Act the proper procedure to determine whether a Mayor has been validly elected is the same as that of Councilor, which is by way of Election Petition to the High Court.
Moreover, Williams noted that Section 148 (1) of Chapter 28:03 provides the time frame for the presentation of an election petition. It is stated that the petition has to be presented within 28 days of the publication under Section 101 of the results of the elections.
“Thus, it is respectfully submitted that this Honourable Court may only be moved by way of an Election Petition which is a special jurisdiction specifically provided for by Statute in both Chapter 28:01 of the Municipal and District Councils Act and the Local Authorities (Elections) Act Chapter 28:03.”
Williams submitted that the rules in Part IV of Chapter 28:03 with regard the challenging of the validity of the election of a councilor, as well as the time for the presentation of the election petition must be “strictly adhered to” since it is a special procedure and jurisdiction that has been created by Stature to address issues relating to the validity of elections conducted for local government.
“It is respectfully submitted that Part IV of the Local Authorities (Elections) Act Chapter 28:03 is mandatory since it has stated as the sub-heading Election and Membership controversies, disputed elections, and the marginal note to Section 146 (1) of Chapter 28:03 describes the section as follows: ‘Method of questioning validity of elections.’”
Given the aforementioned, the Attorney General argued that Mustapha’s motions fall squarely within the ambit of Part IV of Chapter 28:03, which provides for the procedure for any challenge or question in relation to whether any person has been validly elected.
“Parliament has therefore conferred an exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court to determine certain questions. These questions centre around whether generally or in any particular place, an election has been lawfully conducted, a person is qualified to be elected, the result of an election affected or whether any person has been validly elected.”
The PPP Executive Secretary sought the remedy of a prerogative writ to quash the election of the chairmen in the five NDCs as outlined above and the Mayor of the Municipality of Mabaruma, a task not for the High Court.
“This Honourable Court it is respectfully submitted, therefore, does not have the jurisdiction to consider the application. The applicant in order to contest the election of the Mayor and the Neighbourhood Democratic Chairmen by the Honourable Minister Bulkan must in fact question their election and/or their qualification to be elected and the proper procedure would be by way of Election Petition and not by Prerogative Writ,” said Attorney General Williams.
