THE Court of Appeal will today hand down its ruling on whether or not it has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal of APNU+AFC’s Election Petition 99 of 2020.

The ruling will be given during a virtual hearing by Chancellor of the Judiciary, Yonette Cummings-Edwards, and Justices of Appeal, Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud, at 14:00 hrs.

On January 18, 2021, Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George had struck out the case, which had been filed by Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse. They were asking the court to nullify the outcome of the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections, and declare that President Dr. Irfaan Ali is illegally occupying office.

Later that month, lawyer for the appellants, Roysdale Forde,SC, moved to the Court of Appeal to have the CJ’s decision set aside. The appeal, among other things, is contending that the Chief Justice erred in law, and misdirected herself when she misapplied the doctrine of strict compliance, by holding that such compliance is related to the contents of the Affidavit of Service instead of the filing of the Affidavit of Service in a timely manner.

Another ground claims that the Chief Justice erred and misdirected herself when she failed to consider the objective of the petition in making her decision on the content of the Affidavit of Service.

Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) of GECOM, Keith Lowenfield, representatives of several political parties and former President David Granger, are listed as respondents.

During a hearing of the appeal in July, Justice Persaud had inquired as to wether the appeal should have been filed in the Full Court of the High Court instead of the Court of Appeal.

APNU’s attorneys-at-law, Roysdale Forde, S.C., and Trinidadian attorney, John Jeremie, S.C., had argued that the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. Jeremie had even asked the court to reinstate the petition, which was thrown out by the CJ on procedural grounds.

However, Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall, in response, had rejected the lawyers’ contentions, saying that the Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to hear the case since the matter was thrown out by the High Court, and no evidence was heard.

Nandlall submitted that based on the uniqueness of the case, like the Appeal Court, the Full Court also has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

Nandlall had urged the judges to bring an end to the matter by ruling on the issue of jurisdiction since the case might be a “clog” in the judicial system.

“Respectfully, I believe we are going around in circles,” the AG said as he addressed the issue of whether the court has any jurisdiction in appeal proceedings regarding election petition litigations.

“Our respectful answer to that question is a resounding no!” the AG said before explaining that, “One would arrive at such a conclusion if one understands carefully the historical evolution of the jurisdiction, something that we have said over and over again, and the nature, extent and special limited aspect of that jurisdiction are being described repeatedly as ‘sui generis’.”

The AG had said too that according to Section 79 of the High Court Act, which reads “An appeal shall lie to the Full Court from any judgement given or order made by a single judge of the court in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction in respect of which there is no appeal to the Court of Appeal.”

He submitted that one would interpret this section to mean that in the appeal of election petition matters,  the Full Court cannot exercise its civil jurisdiction.

“We have put forward court cases after cases explaining the nature and type of jurisdiction that was received by the High Court …but this is a jurisdiction that the court never had,” the AG had said.

He explained that the Parliament of Guyana had given such power to resolve elections disputes to the High Court and when a decision is made in this “narrow” jurisdiction, it can only be appealed at the Court of Appeal.

“One cannot wander outside of that narrow corridor…We cannot eke out a jurisdiction where one does not exist…Mr. Forde cannot confer jurisdiction where one does not exist,” the AG said.

A second election petition case was dismissed on April 26 by the CJ, on the grounds of serious non-compliance with the Constitution of Guyana, and electoral laws as it relates to GECOM’s conduct of those elections.

The Chief Justice held that the petitioners failed to present evidence to support claims that the conduct of those elections contravened the Constitution and the country’s electoral laws.

The applicants, Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick, subsequently filed an appeal.