By Celestine Juan

COME January 18, 2021, Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George, is expected to give her ruling in the application of Attorney-General, Anil Nandlall and Trinidadian Senior Counsel, Douglas Mendes to have the APNU+AFC’s election petitions, which seek to challenge the validity of the March 2, 2020, General and Regional Elections, thrown out of court.
During the fourth hearing of the case management conference on Tuesday, the Coalition attorney, Trinidadian Senior Counsel, John Jeremie, addressed the court on discrepancies concerning the date former President, David Granger, was served a notice of presentation of the petition and his acknowledgement.

Jeremie was replying to the submission, during Monday’s hearing of the CMC, made by Mendes, who represents Vice-President, Bharrat Jagdeo, who had argued to have the petition thrown out since the second named respondent, former President David Granger, who was listed as a representative of the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), did not comply with Section 2 of the National Assembly Validity of Elections Act.

Mendes is contending that it was not filed within the timeline fixed by the law. He had also highlighted the contradiction with the date when Granger was served with the notice and the date of his acknowledgement of same.

The acknowledgement of service was signed by Granger on September 25, 2020, while the affidavit before the court say that he was served with the notice on September 24,2020.
In what he deemed as a “clerical error”, Jeremie asked the court to disregard the date on the acknowledgement of service and place weight on the date stated on the affidavit.
“The affidavit is the evidence. The acknowledgement of service is not evidence. The acknowledgement is not what the law requires to be served. What the law requires to be served under rule 95 is an affidavit of service… that is complied with,” he said.

However, he later accepted that an error was made and urged the court to overlook the deficiencies of the service to Granger.
In addressing the court, Nandlall mauled Jeremie for not explaining properly to the court about the mix up regarding the date of service.
“There is no explanation from the petitioners as to why they have decided to name Mr Granger a respondent. Now, an objection is made, they simply say that Mr Granger has been wrongly named, putting the onus, apparently on the other side, to find an explanation as to why Mr Granger’s presence is there as a respondent. We did not do that!” Nandlall told the court.
After Nandlall’s address, the acting CJ fixed January 18, 2021, at 13:30hrs, for her decision on the case.

On August 31, 2020, the Coalition, through its lawyer, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, filed documents on behalf of Claudette Thorne while Attorney Mayo Robertson filed his client’s, Heston Bostwick’s documents on September 17.

The petitioners are asking the High Court to determine the legality of the March 2 elections and the results that led to the declaration and allocation of seats in the National Assembly.
Both petitions are seeking an order to direct the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh, to declare former President, David Granger, the winner of the March 2, 2020, General and Regional Elections.

On November 10, Nandlall filed an interlocutory application to have the case struck out on the ground that it did not comply with Section 2 of the National Assembly Validity of Elections Act. It was not filed within the timeline fixed by the law, he is contending. The interlocutory application is being treated as part of one of two election petition cases before the High Court.
Recently, Granger, through his lawyers, gave notice of intentions not to oppose the petition by seeking to exclude himself from the proceedings.
The notice, which was signed by Granger and dated November 26, read “take note that I the undersigned respondent do not intend to oppose the above petition pursuant to the provisions of section 27(1) (a) and (2) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act Cap 1:04 and rule 25 of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Rules Cap 1:04”.
Nandlall had raised the issue of defective service and also argued that by using the Act of National Assembly (Validity of Elections), Granger has acknowledged that he is a proper named party in the case at hand.

Mendes also echoed the same arguments as Nandlall. He argued that Granger’s attorney must show the court that there is no contention in the petition that conflicts with interests in order for them to achieve their submission that Granger is not a necessary party.

Other attorneys who are part of the case are Raphael Trotman, Olayne Joseph, and Trinidad Senior Counsel, John Jeremie. GECOM is being represented by Dominican Senior Counsel, Anthony Astaphan and local attorney, Arud Gossai.

The Coalition has named several respondents inclusive of Keith Lowenfield; Vice-President, Bharrat Jagdeo; and representatives of several political parties who contested the elections, as it wants the High Court to cancel the polls and order fresh elections within 90 days. Former President, David Granger, is also named as a respondent.
The PPP/C emerged victorious in the March 2, 2020 elections following a recount exercise.