The Court of Appeal, this morning, unanimously dismissed the appeal filed by APNU+AFC against the decision of Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George SC who dismissed Election Petition No. 88, filed in the name of Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick.
According to the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C)’ s submissions and confirmed the decision of Chief Justice that the Election Laws (Amendment) Act 2001 and Order 60 made thereunder, are not unconstitutional but lawful and valid; and consequently, the national recount of the ballots at the 2020 Elections conducted by GECOM was lawful, constitutional and not in breach of the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
“In short, the Appellants failed to discharge the heavy legal burden of establishing in law the unconstitutionality and illegality they alleged against the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, Order 60 and the national recount of the ballots done,” Nandlall noted.
He explained that because GECOM was faced with the difficulties in declaring the final results of the 2020 Elections, the body exercised its constitutional duty enshrined in Article 162 of the Constitution and its statutory powers ensconced by the Election Laws (Amendment) Act and crafted Order 60 to overcome those difficulties.
These powers exercised by GECOM were therefore intra vires, reasonably exercised and in compliance with the intention of the framers of the Constitution and Parliament, the AG via a Facebook post this morning. The court also emphasised that the consequential recount of the ballots conducted were done in a transparent, fair and accountable fashion.
In conclusion, the court rejected the Appellants’ contention that GECOM by promulgating Order 60 usurped the law-making powers of Parliament. On the contrary, the court found that GECOM’s power to issue subsidiary legislation in the form of Order 60 was exercised within the acceptable legal parameters and there was no trespass upon the province of Parliament.
The court awarded costs in the sum of $150,000 in favour of the four respondents who participated by way of submissions.
