The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) Wednesday allowed the appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Guyana regarding the election petitions filed following the controversial March 2 regional and general elections in the country.
The CCJ, which is Guyana’s highest court, said it agreed with the majority of the Court of Appeal that it had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a decision of the chief justice, sitting in the High Court, dismissing an election petition for improper and or late service.
Following the elections and the release of the official results in August, an election petition, 99P/2020 was filed by the petitioners, Monica Thomas and Brennan Joette Natasha Nurse challenging the validity of the election as well as seeking an order that the election be deemed unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect.
The petition was heard by acting Chief Justice, Roxane George, and at the case management stage, she raised the issue of whether former president David Granger, the representative of the coalition, A Partnership for National Unity, and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC), was a proper and necessary party to the petition.
The chief justice also raised the question of whether he had been properly served within the required statutory period. Granger should have been served by September 21, 2020, but was, in fact, served on September 25.
As a result, the acting chief justice dismissed the petition, ruling that it was a nullity.
The petitioners appealed the decision, but Attorney General Anil Landall and Vice President, Bharrat Jagdeo objected on the ground that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
They argued that Article 163 of the Constitution creates a regime for hearing election petitions, and only provides two circumstances for appeal: one, an appeal from a decision of the judge granting or refusing leave to institute proceedings to determine questions stated in Article 163(1) of the Constitution and two, an appeal from the determination of any of those questions in Article 163(1) or an order made in consequence of such determination.
The attorney general and Jagdeo argued that the acting chief justice’s decision did not fall into either circumstance and therefore, neither Thomas nor Nurse had any right to appeal the decision. The majority of the Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that it did have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
In delivering the majority ruling of the CCJ, Justice Winston Anderson disagreed with the Court of Appeal, finding that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
The CCJ noted that the election petition, 99P/2020, had to be determined in accordance with this framework, including whether there was compliance with the provisions for service of the petition.
CMC/
 allowed the election appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Guyana){kind=link}