Evidence debunks APNU+AFC’s claim that elections cases not related

The APNU+AFC continues to push the narrative that the legal battles brought by Ulita Moore and Eslyn David are not connected. However, evidence proves that the cases are similar.

Coalition members had repeatedly argued that the party played no part in the delayed declaration of the March 2, 2020 Elections results, with the incumbent President, David Granger, stating publicly that he would abide by the rulings of the courts. However, on three separate occasions, three members of the party have ventured to the court, each presenting arguments resembling the previous.

It was during the oral submissions in the Misenga Jones versus the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) et al litigation on Saturday last that attorney for The Citizenship Initiative (TCI) and Change Guyana, Kashir Khan, pointed out to the Appellate Court, a section in Jones’ affidavit that showed a direct link to the Ulita Moore case.
“Misenga Jones in her affidavit at paragraph 14, speaks to an exhibit marked UM3…UM3 refers to Ulita Moore. It is as patent and as blatant as that,” Khan revealed. That reference, he added, was “a barefaced attempt to relitigate what the court has already decided.”

Moore had brought the very first case for the Coalition on March 17, seeking to block the CARICOM scrutinized recount. In her application, Moore through her attorneys-at-law, Mayo Robertson and Roysdale Forde, had requested that the Court order GECOM to utilize the fraudulent declarations made by Clairmont Mingo on March 13. The High Court had ruled on the case in favour of Moore. However that ruling was overturned by the Full Court.

David brought the next case to the Court of Appeal on June 19, attempting to block the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, from presenting his final report using the figures from the recount. David was represented by Attorneys-at-law Robertson, who represented Moore in the first case, and Roger Yearwood.

The Appellate Court ruled 2-1 in favour of David but that ruling was later overturned when the Opposition ventured to the apex court, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). David was represented by attorney Robertson. The CCJ ruled that the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to rule on David’s case thereby clearing the path for the GECOM Chair, to once again, order the CEO to prepare his report using the recount figures.

Jones brought the next case, and like Moore and David, she was represented by Attorney-at-law, Mayo Robertson. She had moved to the High Court with an attempt to force GECOM to rely on nothing but the 10 March 13 district declarations which were struck down by GECOM Chair, Retired Justice, Claudette Singh, as the basis on which a final elections declaration is made. Those declarations included the fraud-laced declaration made by Mingo that Moore had wanted GECOM to use to grant the Coalition a false win.

The Acting Chief Justice (CJ), Roxane George-Wiltshire, handed down her ruling in the Jones’ case, deeming it “Res Judicata”, which meant that the matter was already settled by previous court decisions.
“There must be finality to judicial decisions,” the CJ said, “Myriad persons cannot be permitted to engage the court with multiple applications regarding the same issue which has been decided, and shield behind the claim that they were not a party to the previous proceedings.”

It should be noted that one important common denominator found in all three cases was Attorney Robertson who has close ties with the Coalition. The party’s Campaign Manager, Joseph Harmon, had even admitted that it was the Coalition behind the cases in a release shortly after the High Court ruled.

“It is disappointing that in its ruling today, in the case of Misenga Jones vs GECOM et al, the Court has side-stepped the issue of fraudulent ballots in the tabulated votes at the Recount…Our lawyers will engage at the next level of the Court System to ensure that Our Constitution is respected and adhered to by all,” Harmon stated.
The Coalition’s act of abusing the court was not lost on the stakeholders keeping a keen eye on Guyana’s 2020 election. The Organization of American States (OAS’)s General Secretary, Luis Almagro, had alluded to this at the recently convened OAS Permanent Council meeting, citing that it was these very court battles causing a delay in the declaration of the results.

He said, “This must come to an end. It is not serving or benefitting Guyana. It is not serving the institutions. It is not serving democracy. It is not serving [President David] Granger. We plead respectfully to not have further use of the judicial system to delay a resolution. The judicial system should not be used in this consistent form or context.”