AT the commencement of the case management conference (CMC) on Thursday, Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire raised several issues into the APNU+AFC’s Elections Petition which seeks to challenge the validity of the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections.

On August 31, the Coalition, through its lawyer, Roysdale Forde, filed the documents on behalf of Claudette Thorne while on September 17, Attorney Mayo Robertson filed documents on behalf of Heston Bostwick, who both want the High Court to determine the legality of the elections, and the results that led to the declaration and allocation of seats in the National Assembly.

Other attorneys who are part of the case are Raphael Trotman, Olayne Joseph, and Trinidad Senior Counsel, John Jeremie.
Also sitting in the case was Attorney-General, Anil Nandlall.

The Coalition had named several respondents, among them Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield; Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo as well as representatives of several political parties that contested the elections, as it wants the High Court to cancel the polls and order fresh elections within 90 days.
The PPP/C emerged victorious in the aftermath of those elections. The applicants have also named former President, David Granger, as a respondent to the petitions.
During the CMC hearing, the Chief Justice observed that both petitions are seeking an order which will direct the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to declare former President, David Granger the winner of the March 2 elections.
To this, she further observed that Granger is listed as a respondent in the case at hand, and questioned if he could have an interest that can cause conflict with the petition.

She also quoted Section 4 (2) of chapter 104 of the National Assembly Validity of Elections Act which provides that a respondent would be a person representing a list whose interest conflicts with the petition.

The Chief Justice, in her preliminary views stated that she does not consider that another party can raise objections to an application for the production of the elections documents or papers or to inspect same.

Attorneys Forde and Robertson requested that both petitions be heard separately. However the Chief Justice replied by saying that the petitions are almost identical and was like “taking two different routes but hoping to arrive at the same destination”.

Robertson however argued that it would lead to confusion if both petitions are tried together but the Chief Justice remained unbending and said, “it makes no sense where we have petitions asking for the exact same reliefs tried separately.”

During the hearing, Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo’s Attorney, Douglas Mendes, a Trinidadian Senior Counsel, argued that the petitions are null since his client was not served the applications in accordance with established procedures.

He was asked by the Chief Justice to make applications/submissions on this matter on or before November 5.
The case comes up again on November 24 for the preliminary hearing.

According to Guyana’s laws, the validity of votes can be challenged only through an election petition after the overall election result has been declared, and a Government is in place. At this point, an investigation will be done, and the case tried in court, based on the evidence presented.