THE Court of Appeal on Monday took note of the APNU+AFC’s 18-month delay in appealing the dismissal of Election Petition 88 of 2022 and said that the circumstances will have to be investigated.

“It is of the court’s view that, in the public interest and the wider interest of justice, matters of this nature should be heard and be determined in a timely manner. We note the timeline of some 18 months before this appeal has been brought to this stage, if I may put it that way. But whether the failure to conduct and prosecute the appeal with due dispatch lies within the bosom of the counsel for the appellant or senior counsel to the appellant or whether it lies at the feet of the judicial system itself is an issue that will have to be investigated,” the Chancellor of the Judiciary, Yonette Cummings-Edwards said.

Justice Cummings-Edwards was, at the time, delivering her ruling in a case filed by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde to have the hearing of the case expedited.

The motion which was filed on behalf of Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick was heard by the Chancellor and Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud.

Forde, during the hearing, said that they were “forced” to file the motion due to the failure of Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George, S.C., to deliver the written decision to the applicants, which resulted in a delay of the documents needed for the notice of appeal.

He disclosed that a draft of the decision was made available by the CJ’s clerks, but was only to be used for “informational purposes”.

“We respectfully submit that we would have suffered up to now at this stage, a substantial prejudice by the failure to have the full decision made and laid before the court upon which we could first establish the notice of appeal and the ground of appeal,” he said.

Meanwhile, Trinidadian Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, who is representing Vice- President Bharrat Jagdeo submitted that while the application should be heard urgently, it should have been filed earlier.

“Had his application been made, along with the filing of the notice of appeal on May 31, 2021, there couldn’t have been no resistance by any of the respondents to the application that the appeals be expedited,” Mendes said.

He pointed out that if that procedure was followed, it is likely that the appeal would have already been heard and disposed of by the court.

“My learned friend is blaming everyone except the appellant themselves for the position that they are in…. [they are] blaming the learned Chief Justice for not delivering a written judgment when the transcript of the oral judgment… has always been available, and I presume that he’s also blaming the Registrar for not progressing this appeal,” Mendes argued.

He added that the respondent and the public are entitled to have the cases dealt with urgently, however, this seems not to be of interest to Forde, who is not taking any blame for the delay.

Among other things, Mendes said that the appeal should be dismissed due to the applicant’s inactiveness for months.

Following the arguments, the Chancellor in delivering the ruling said that the court would allow the motion and move ahead with the hearing of the substantive matter.

The court has set November 1, 2022, for report, after which timelines will be fixed for the hearing of the case.

In the notice of appeal, the applicants are challenging the Chief Justice’s dismissal of the petition in April 2021.

In that matter, Thorne and Bostwick had asked 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.

They sought an order directing 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.

The Chief Justice struck out the petition on the ground of serious non-compliance with the Constitution of Guyana and electoral laws as it relates to GECOM’s conduct of those elections.

She also found 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.

Dissatisfied, the aggrieved petitioners moved to the Appeal Court and, among other things, are contending that the Chief Justice erred in law and misdirected herself when she misapplied the doctrine of strict compliance.

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

The first petition, Election Petition 99 of 2020 was filed on behalf of petitioners Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse. In January 2021, it was dismissed by the Chief Justice due to late service, non-service, or improper service. It is currently before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) awaiting a decision.