Elections 2020: Moore’s Lawyers make case for Appellate Court to restore injunctions

Having established that the High Court has constitutional supervisory jurisdiction to review the agreement for a national recount inked by President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo, the Court of Appeal should restore the interim orders granted by Justice Franklin Holder, the battery of lawyers, representing Ulita Moore, have argued. Those orders, in effect, blocked the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) from conducting a National Recount but were lifted by the Full Court.

In a letter to the Court of Appeal on Monday on the issue of ‘Consequential Orders’ in the case Ulita Moore v Bharrat Jagdeo and others, Attorney-at-Law Mayo Robertson said Court having established jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter of “supervision,” the Appellate Court ought to allow the case to be determined by Justice Holder. Further to that, Robertson made a case for the interim orders granted by Holder on March 17 to be restored. The orders, blocking a national recount, were discharged by the Full Court on March 31 when it found that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear Moore’s Fixed Date Application (FDA).

“It is further submitted that the Court of Appeal, having found that Justice Holder had Jurisdiction to hear the Fixed Date Application in respect of Supervision contemplated in the Agreement entered into between the President and the Leader of the Opposition, the Orders of the Full Court must be vacated and the interim Orders made by Justice Holder in relation to the aforesaid Agreement be restored, otherwise the 1st, 2nd and 3rd named Respondents would be free to proceed to act on the aforesaid,” Robertson told the Court.
Robertson pointed out that by a majority, the Appellate Court ruled that jurisdiction does exist in the High Court for Justice Holder to enquire into the Constitutionality of the agreement, which would have led to the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) supervising a National Recount of all the votes cast at the March 2 General and Regional Elections.

Emphasizing that the issue before the Court was only that of jurisdiction, the lawyer invited the Appellate Court to order that firstly the appeal is allowed in part. Secondly, Moore’s Legal Counsel has asked the Appellate Court to order that the High Court has jurisdiction to treat with the constitutionality of the agreement agreed upon by the political leaders, CARICOM and GECOM, and as such, order that the interim orders set aside by the Full Court are permitted with respect to the agreement between the President and the Leader of the Opposition. He also wants the Full Court’s order dismissing the Fixed Date Application to be set aside.

However, Robertson submitted that in the event that the Appellate Court finds that it has jurisdiction to grant all the orders the Full Court could have made, it should order that “any action by GECOM and or its Chairman pursuant to the agreement between the President and the Leader of the Opposition to facilitate a recount by the CARICOM team would be unlawful.”

Added to that, he said it should also order that GECOM and the other respondents in the case have no authority to accede to any request for a recount of the votes cast by electors in favour of the Lists of Candidates in the 10 Electoral Districts on the basis of an Agreement between the President of Guyana and the Leader of the Opposition.

He submitted too that the Court should order that “the Respondents are not empowered under the Constitution or any Law to permit or authorise any person or persons pursuant to any Agreement between the President of Guyana and the Leader of the Opposition and or any Agreement between the Guyana Elections Commission and the Caribbean Community to give effect to or to count or recount any ballots cast by Electors at the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections after a refusal of an application for a Recount by the Returning Officer of a Polling District and or the Declaration or Electoral Returns made by a Returning Officers being deemed final pursuant to Section 84 (2) of the Representation of the People Act and or the communication of the election results to the Commission by the Chief Elections Officer of the said Commission.”

Among the other proposed orders is one that states that GECOM has no authority or power to act contrary to the provisions of the Constitution or the Representation of the People Act. As such, it cannot abandon the statutorily mandated procedures and to employ procedures not contemplated by the Constitution or the Representation of the People Act.

Robertson is representing Moore in association with Grenadian Queens Counsel, Dr Francis Alexis, and Attorneys-at-Law John Jeremie S.C., Keith Scotland out of Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana’s Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde.