CEO’s report must still be based on valid votes

Attorney-At-Law, Mayo Robertson, has stated that, while he is disappointed that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruled that it had jurisdiction over the Guyana elections case, he is pleased that the Court did not invalidate any of the country’s laws and has maintained that valid votes must be used to determine the elections results.

Robertson represented the first respondent in the case filed by People’s Progressive Party/Civic’s (PPP/C’s) General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo, and PPP/C’s Presidential Candidate, Irfaan Ali, before the CCJ, challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision to interpret Article 177 (2) of the Constitution to mean “more valid votes are cast”.

Shortly after the CCJ, in assuming jurisdiction to hear the application, set aside the Appellate Court’s decision and invalidated the Elections Report submitted by the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Robertson appeared on a programme hosted by the APNU+AFC to give his comments.

“That was a little bit disappointing for us because we believe that we had presented a persuasive case to allow the Court to reach a different conclusion but we must not over play the effect of today’s ruling,” he advised.

“The Court has stood by its previous position that it cannot tell GECOM how to do its job. All the Court has said is that ‘the process must continue; we believe the Court of Appeal was wrong but the law in Guyana still stands’ and that law is that the CEO prepares his report and it’s only on the basis of that report that the declaration can be made. They invalidated the report that was presented earlier but that doesn’t mean that the declaration can proceed without a report. Another report has to be presented. So, I would suggest to our friends that they keep the champagne on ice for a little while.”

Robertson said that not only did the CCJ reject the invitation to make declarations about which party won or lost, but it did not interfere with the concept that “valid votes” must be the governing principle that the CEO uses to prepare his report.

Furthermore, he explained that given that the CCJ ruled that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the application filed by Eslyn David, it is therefore consistent with its ruling that the CEO’s report was set aside as it was premised on the decision of the Court of Appeal.

He stated: “My understanding is that the CCJ reaffirmed the concept of a valid vote and it is clear that our law requires the CEO to provide a report based on valid votes…the Court did not specifically say ‘x’ number of votes are valid or ‘y’ number of votes are valid. It simply said that the decision of the Court of Appeal was wrong so that the CEO’s report which was based on the Court’s decision should be set aside. It did not say that the CEO should not go and prepare a report based on valid votes and I fully expect that that is what he will do.”

The Attorney-at-Law said that while he would not be surprised if some would run with headlines today proclaiming victory, the process is not yet complete as the CEO has not yet submitted the necessary report and a declaration has not yet been made.
He said that what are needed is steady heads and hands to correctly analyze the official decision of the Court and to comply with the said decision.

“To the extent that the Court made a ruling, it’s not very much different from what we were seeking. Remember we went to the Court under [Article] 177 (4) to get the Court to agree that only valid votes could be used in the tabulation of the recount to make a decision as to who should be declared the President. The Court has confirmed that, only valid votes could be used,” he said.

“In addition, the Court has not changed our Constitution. The Court has certainly not suggested that the CEO does not have to prepare a report. He still has to prepare this report as required by the Constitution and it’s still only on the basis of that report that the Chair can then proceed with the declaration process. So, while the Court agreed to take jurisdiction, I don’t believe the result is earth-shaking because the Court did not disavow the concept that only valid votes could be used in the tabulation and the Court also reaffirmed the position of the CEO with respect to the report.”

Robertson also said that the national recount Order No. 60 has not been invalidated by the Court and the CEO must therefore take it into consideration in the presentation of his report. He advised the Guyanese public that while they may be disappointed with the decision of the CCJ to assume jurisdiction, the Court did not invalidate any of the country’s laws or processes.