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.

(Kaieteur News)