By Patrick Denny
Stabroek News
March 24, 2001
Just hours before his scheduled 3 pm swearing in, the People's National
Congress REFORM (PNC/R) yesterday applied to the High Court seeking an
injunction to prevent the anointing of Bharrat Jagdeo as
President.
However, the way could be cleared as early as today for his
swearing in as the winner of Monday's presidential elections, unless
lawyers for PNC/R candidate Joseph Hamilton can overcome submissions by
lawyers for the Attorney General (AG) and the President that the motion
should be dismissed.
President Jagdeo's swearing in was set for 3 pm
yesterday at the Umana Yana, but was postponed after an application for
the prohibition order was filed. Last night, President Jagdeo told
reporters at a press conference that no swearing-in ceremony would be held
before the issue was determined by the court. He said that as a citizen
and President he respected and would continue to respect the law as the
country could not endure the trauma of 1997 again. The court move mirrored
the PNC's attempt in 1997 to prevent the installation of Mrs Janet Jagan
as the new President. She was, however, sworn in at a secret ceremony
before the relevant court documents could be served on her.
Today, Hamilton's lawyers will have to successfully respond to
submissions by Doodnauth Singh, SC, for the AG and Ralph Ramkarran, SC,
for President Jagdeo that Chairman of the Elections Commission, Major
General (rtd) Joe Singh had declared President Jagdeo the winner of
Monday's elections and had issued an instrument to that effect. They
argued that as a result, the issue could not be the subject of judicial
review. The matter is being heard by Chief Justice Desiree
Bernard.
Another submission by Singh and Ramkarran was that Hamilton's
affidavit contained allegations which ought to be the subject of an
election petition and not a constitutional motion. They both cited cases
in Guyana, St Vincent and the Grenadines, India and the United Kingdom in
support of their submissions as well as the Chief Justice's own ruling on
the same point in the case brought by Aubrey Norton seeking to prevent Mrs
Jagan being sworn in as President in 1997.
In responding to the
submissions, Hamilton's lead counsel, Basil Williams, sought the
assistance of the court in ascertaining the circumstances under which the
instrument declaring President Jagdeo winner of Monday's presidential
election was signed. He said his information was that the commissioners
from the PNC/R on the Elections Commission were not present at the meeting
yesterday when the instrument was signed by Maj. Gen. Singh.
He also said that, according to his instructions, the issue of the
instrument was not discussed among the commissioners on Thursday before
the Chief Election Officer (ag), Gocool Boodoo, announced the final
results of Monday's general elections.
Pressed to respond to the legal
arguments by Singh and Ramkarran, Williams sought and was granted an
adjournment, though not as long as he requested, to respond.
In
granting the adjournment to this morning, Chief Justice Bernard noted that
the matter was one that should be dealt with dispatch and declared her
intention to sit tomorrow as well if necessary. She chided Williams about
the adjournment syndrome, which seems to afflict some lawyers.
Williams also sought and obtained an assurance from President Jagdeo's
counsel that the swearing-in ceremony would take place only after the
matter was determined. Chief Justice Bernard reminded Williams that she
herself had spoken to Maj. Gen. Singh as well as counsel for the Elections
Commission and did not expect that the ceremony would be held before the
motion was determined. She said too that she expected counsel for the
commission to be present at today's hearing and that information about the
signing of the instrument declaring President Jagdeo winner of the
presidential elections would be available.
Among the grounds on which
Hamilton is seeking to block the swearing-in are that the returning
officers of the ten geographical constituencies omitted to declare the
results for their constituencies and that they did not compile those
returns in accordance with Section 84 of the Representation of the People
Act.
Hamilton also claimed that the results of the election were
inaccurate as a document prepared by the commission showed the PNC/R as
receiving less votes than the results recorded on the statements of poll
for three polling places in Region Four - 413511D, 413521B(1) and
413431A(1).
He claimed too that the commission used tally sheets
instead of statements of poll to determine the votes cast for the various
parties and that this was a breach of the Representation of the People
Act.