Attorney General Anil Nandlall and Attorney Douglas Mendez who is representing the Vice President in the election petition appeal case have both objected to more submissions being made to the court by the Attorney for the petitioners, Roysdale Forde.
Senior Counsel Nandlall and Mendez are both calling for the matter to be wrapped up soon.
Election Petition 99 was thrown out by the Chief Justice earlier this year on the basis that the second named respondent, Former, President David Granger, was served the petition after the prescribed time for service had expired.
The petitioners then decided to appeal that ruling.
The Attorney General and Mr. Jagdeo’s Attorney have been arguing that the Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Mr. Nandlall has also argued the appeal should be struck out as there is no statutory or constitutional jurisdiction for the Court of Appeal to hear an election petition dismissed for procedural impropriety.
Mr. Mendes believes that the appeal should not have been entertained at all since the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter. He also believes the Full Court lacks jurisdiction.
With those arguments, Attorney Roysdale Forde who is representing the petitioners has asked to be allowed to make more submissions to the Court in response to the arguments put forward by the two Attorneys.
However, both Nandlall and Mendez have objected, indicating that it’s time for the matter to be wrapped up. They believe that allowing Forde to make additional submissions, could result in the other Attorneys wanting to make submissions in response and that could further drag out the case.
Mr. Forde contends that the submissions would be in response to the arguments submitted by the two Attorneys and nothing new.
Chancellor Yonette Cummings granted Mr. Forde time to make his submissions and the Attorneys have been granted seven days to make their responses to Forde’s submissions once they are filed.
The Chancellor made it clear that matters that are not directly related to the previous arguments will not be entertained.
The matter will now come up again on the 26th of November and at that time, a date will be set for a final ruling in the case.