The Case management conference into the appeal of Guyana’s Appellate Court decision in the Eslyn David matter was held on Thursday, June 25th by the Caribbean Court of Justice. The Appellate Court ruled that it is only valid votes that should be counted. The conference was held virtually.
The full panel of judges was led by the Court’s President Adrian Saunders. The order handed down by the court was for leave to be given for the governing APNU/AFC and the United Republic Party to intervene in the proceedings. The matter will be heard on Wednesday.
The principal issues in the matter are whether Guyana’s Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain the application made to it; if the court of appeal lacked such jurisdiction, what is the consequence to the proposed appeal to the CCJ; If Guyana’s court of appeal had rightly assumed jurisdiction then what is the consequence of that to the proposed appeal to the CCJ; and if Guyana’s court of appeal rightly assumed jurisdiction and it exceeded its jurisdiction what is the consequence of that to the proposed appeal to the CCJ.
Senior Counsel and the lead attorney representing the opposition People’s Progressive Party in the matter, Douglas Mendes attempted to extract from the court an order for the GECOM’s Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield to withdraw his election report which was submitted to the commission. The report was submitted to the commission on Tuesday morning before the Caribbean Court of Justice issued any direction for the commission to cease taking any further action.
However, Justice Winston Anderson of Jamaica said the CCJ should not entertain the matter as that order needed to have been issued by the Appellate Court.
“I am sure no approach was made to the Court of Appeal by the applicants and what the Chief Elections Officer did or did not do, took place before the order of this court”.
President of the CCJ, Justice Saunders then said, “We cannot undo what was done by the Chief Elections Officer, if counsel wishes to include in their submissions whether what was done was lawfully done or whether there is no consequence or whether there is a consequence to what was done then you are free to do so”.
Guyana’s Appellate Court had on Monday previously ruled that the matter was final.
Eslyn David’s lawyer Former Trinidad and Tobago Attorney General and Senior Counsel John Jermey expressed his concern of attempts being made by senior persons outside of the region who are attempting to influence the outcome of the proceedings.
Justice Saunders in response gave the assurance that the court’s decision will be based on the submissions made by attorneys involved.
“You can rest assured that the bench is going to treat with this matter only on the basis of the material that you and your colleagues, those with you, those against you, those who are in this court today, on the basis of what you submit and that is what is always done, certainly by this court. So you can rest assured that we are not going to have regard to anything which is being said outside of the court, and which does not feature as a relevant part of these proceedings.”
Lawyers also in the matter were warned to not give the impression that the Case Management Conference should not be used as an indicator that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter, as that has not yet been decided on.
The Opposition’s People’s Progressive Party moved to the Caribbean Court of Justice to challenge the decision of Guyana’s Appellate Court in Eslyn David’s matter.
The Appellate Court ruled that it is the more valid votes cast that should be used to determine the outcome of the elections.
The party believes that ballots that cannot be verified, ballots cast in the name of the dead, ballots of those confirmed to be out of the jurisdiction and those affected by other anomalies should be counted. If those votes are counted, then it would give the Coalition party a win in the Elections.
Party Officials are claiming that by virtue of the observation reports stating that only valid votes be counted, then there should be no challenge. However, it was on those same reports that GECOM staff stated that ballots in more than 40 boxes could not be validated because of the absence of all the statutory documents.