Lawful conduct of polls can be considered separately from results - McKay tells petition Petitioner introduced to court Stabroek News July 11, 2000 Even if the results of the 1997 elections were not affected by the improper procedures of the Elections Commission the results could still be deemed invalid. So said Senior Counsel Rex McKay yesterday on the first day of his closing address to the court on behalf of Desmond Hoyte. McKay read from Section 163 of the Constitution that states the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court is to determine "whether either generally or in any particular place, an election has been lawfully conducted or the result thereof has been or may have been affected by any unlawful act or omission." McKay stressed the pivotal conjunctive "or" as allowing the court to consider separately the lawful conduct of an election from the results being affected. "We don't have to go and count votes to see if an election has been affected by these unlawful acts," he asserted and went on to list the failings of the Elections Commission: imbalance in the distribution of voter identification cards; deprivation of electors of their ID cards, namely by the non production of 2,000 cards and the non-distribution of 28,000; 45,000 persons voting without cards; 250 statements of poll still unaccounted for. "Where are the originals?" Their continued absence should at least give the court pause to believe that the results were not properly arrived at, he said. In the face of this mountain of evidence, McKay said, Senior Counsel Doodnauth Singh still said in his closing address that there was not a "tittle of evidence" to show unlawful procedures. While he had urged the court to consider the erratum or be the laughing stock of the Caribbean, McKay noted that Singh himself was the "laughing stock" as he was not only the former chairman of the commission, but was still representing his own chief election officer. Dr Leslie Ramsammy's evidence concerning ID cards was dismissed as worthless and McKay read from his testimony where Dr Ramsammy stated, "My statistics were not from my own observations." The morning began with Doodnauth Singh making a pre-emptive bid to restrain McKay from disputing the CARICOM Audit Commission's findings because his client Hoyte had signed the Herdmanston Accord, binding the parties to accept the results. Singh then read extensively from the report. But McKay hardly bothered to respond to Singh's arguments: "Respond to what?" he asked Justice Claudette Singh. "For goodness sakes... this is the second time he is reading this out!" Singh still asked the judge for a ruling but she only said she would consider it, while McKay argued. Meanwhile, Senior Counsel Peter Britton introduced his client Esther Perreira to the court and to Singh who had in his closing address suggested she was a ghost. McKay will continue today. Follow the goings-on in Guyana in Guyana Today