The AFC will continue its fight for justice, free and fair elections and the freedom of the people to choose their own representatives. The Acting Chief Justice, Mr. Ian Chang, has ruled, on a legal technicality, against the Petitioner, Mr. Melville, who was seeking to correct GECOM’s refusal to award the Region 10 seat to the AFC according to the people’s wishes. An AFC win was clearly the result by the simple arithmetical computation of votes cast from the authentic Statement of Polls. Every citizen of Guyana who paid keen attention to this matter must see this only as a pot hole on our road to freedom and be reminded that nothing worth fighting for is easily gained. The struggle will continue and we will have to ensure that at the upcoming elections, we the people must win every victory decisively, without having to depend on the Courts to determine the people’s will.

There has to be a fundamental flaw in our legal system that can see a procedural technicality setting aside the will of the people. As the next government, the AFC vows to reform the judicial system so that the ordinary person will not just see justice, but be able to know and experience it.

As is well known, when the error was brought to the attention of GECOM it advised that it had no power to take back the seat already announced publicly in favour of the PPP/C. GECOM had steadfastly held that the correction of this mistake had to be done through the High Court through a Petition.

A set of preliminary points were argued jointly by lawyers for GECOM and the PPP/C to dismiss our just Petition. The AFC was of the view that these were all intended to stall the process for more than three years. During this time the file was “lost” and was found after the AFC raised its voice; whereupon it came before the Acting Chief Justice Mr. Chang.

The AFC and its Region 10 Candidate, Mr. Melville, were optimistic that the late filing of the Affidavit of Service was not going to be so severe, especially in the context of the principle that in contested disputes the merits of the issue should be dealt with.

The ruling was on a preliminary point, namely, that the Petitioner breached a procedural requirement when he filed his Affidavit of Service ten months after filing the Petition. The legal requirement stipulated no specific timeline, but merely stated that it ought to be done shortly after the filing of the Petition.

The Learned Judge held that this non-compliance in meeting this time requirement was so fundamental that it was mandatory and not directory. Consequently, it made the Petition so defective that the result was that Court felt that it could not go on to hear the merits of the case.

It should be remembered that after the 2006 Elections when the leaders of the AFC instituted a constitutional motion seeking declarations whether there was a lawful convening of Parliament when President Jagdeo had lapsed by several months in convening the Parliament, the Court, then Chief Justice, Mr. Carl Singh, had ruled that the President’s non-compliance of constitutional timelines, namely 4 months, was not so severe as to invalidate the convening of Parliament. Non-compliance then was held merely directory not mandatory. The AFC notes this contradiction.

The AFC is disappointed and frustrated by the ruling. But in the meantime will respect the Rule of Law and judgment of the Court whilst considering appealing the decision.

Please follow and like us: