The APNU+AFC Opposition has filed a motion seeking an early hearing of its appeal to Chief Justice Roxane George’s decision that there is nothing unconstitutional about Section 22 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act and Order 60 (Recount Order).
The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) had relied on Order 60 and the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act to facilitate a national recount of the votes cast at the March, 2020 Elections.
It was based on the results on that recount that President Irfaan Ali was elected to Office, however, the APNU+AFC is seeking to nulify the entire Elections on the basis that the recount was illegal.
On Tuesday, the Petitioners, Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick, filed a Notice of Motion in the Court of Appeal seeking an early date for the hearing and determination of the appeal which was filed on May 31, 2021.
In his Affidavit, Mr. Bostwick, an Albouystown resident, told the appellate court that his Attorney, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, made numerous attempts to secure an early hearing of the appeal but to no avail.
“…19 months have elapsed from the date of the delivery of the said judgement,” Mr. Bostwick told the Court.
He pointed out that on March 17, 2022, his Attorney dispatched a letter to the Registry of the Court of Appeal requesting an urgent hearing on the ground that the case is of national importance but was subsequently told that the Appeal could not be fixed because the Registry was not in possession of a copy of the written decision of the Court.
Anxious to have the appeal heard, Mr. Bostwick attached a YouTube link with the delivery of the judgement handed down on April 26, 2021.
“…my right of appeal has been rendered nugatory and futile by the failure to obtain a ‘full decision,’” he told the Court while adding that the issuance of any full decision after the expiration of a period of 16 months is a breach of his right to fair hearing within a reasonable time.
Mr. Thorne and Mr. Bostwick are of the opinion that the Chief Justice erred in law when she ruled that Section 22 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act 2000 and Order 60 made thereunder were not in violation of the Constitution.
Through their attorney, they have argued that the application of Section 22 and Order 60 during the 2020 Elections conflicted with Article 177 of the Constitution. It was further submitted that Section 22 and Order 60 by their amplitude of power, contravened the doctrine of the Separation of Powers inherent in the Constitution.
Mr. Keith Lowenfield, the former Chief Elections Officer; Mr. David Granger, the Representative of the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU+AFC) and Representative of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo are among the 13 respondents in the elections case.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login