CJ accepts AG’s interlocutory application

AN interlocutory application filed by the Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, will be treated as part of one of two election petition cases before the High Court.
This was disclosed by Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire after hearing submissions from Nandlall and Attorney-at-law, Mayo Robertson, during a Case Management Conference (CMC) held on Tuesday for the case filed by petitioners, Monica Thomas and Heston Bostwick.

Robertson, in his submissions, strongly opposed the AG’s attempt to have his clients’ case struck out.
On November 10, Nandlall filed an interlocutory application to have the case struck out on the ground that it did not comply with Section 2 of the National Assembly Validity of Elections Act. It was not filed within the timeline fixed by the law, he is contending.

During the hearing, Robertson argued that the AG’s application was improper and should not be allowed. He submitted that the CMC Order, which was issued by the Chief Justice (CJ) during the last hearing, should be obeyed.

Robertson contended that the AG was trying to force the court to hear the application when November 30 was already set aside to hear those issues.
“The order was specific. The Attorney General was granted permission to file submissions, so he decided without the permission of the court to file an application,” Robertson stressed.
While addressing the court on his reasons for filing the interlocutory application, Nandlall accepted that he went beyond what was asked of him by the court.
“I want to emphasise that my friend is guilty of the same thing. So, if I am wrong, he is even more wrong. My application is simply an interlocutory application. So, if my application is struck out, it doesn’t really affect me, but his own; both petitions go,” Nandlall said.

In response, the Chief Justice pointed out that an application from Nandlall was not required.
“I really don’t know why the AG filed that application, because it was an issue that was raised by the court. There was no need to file an application; submissions alone could have been filed,” she said.

The CJ reminded Robertson that persons would file an interlocutory application for various court cases just as the AG did. Later, she scolded the attorney as she found his submission “untenable.” This led to Roberson apologising.
Nandlall jokingly told the CJ that he would not have minded if the court upheld Roberson’s submission which in the end would have led to both petitions being struck-out.

“While indeed Mr. Nandlall did not have to file the application, he is contending that he had factual issues that had to be disclosed. I don’t necessarily agree because, again, everything that has been referred to in the application is disclosed in the record… there is no harm done and [I] will not strike out the application,” the CJ said.
She later said that the AG’s application will be treated as part of the case.
On August 31, the coalition, through its lawyer, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, filed documents on behalf of Claudette Thorne while Robertson filed his clients’ documents on September 17.

The petitioners are asking the High Court to determine the legality of the March 2 elections and the results that led to the declaration and allocation of seats in the National Assembly.

Both petitions are seeking an order to direct the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh, to declare former President, David Granger, the winner of the March 2, 2020, General and Regional Elections.

Other attorneys who are part of the case are Raphael Trotman, Olayne Joseph, and Trinidad Senior Counsel, John Jeremie. GECOM is being represented by Dominican Senior Counsel, Anthony Astaphan and local attorney, Arud Gossai.

The coalition has named several respondents inclusive of Keith Lowenfield; Vice-President, Bharrat Jagdeo; and representatives of several political parties that contested the elections, as it wants the High Court to cancel the polls and order fresh elections within 90 days. Former President, David Granger is also named as a respondent.
The PPP/C emerged victorious following a recount exercise.

In the first CMC hearing, which was held last month, Douglas Mendes, who is representing Jagdeo, argued that the petition was null since his client was not served in accordance with the established procedures.

The case was adjourned to November 30.