Court dismisses ‘frivolous’ charge against GECOM Chairman, gov’t commissioners
Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan yesterday dismissed a private criminal charge brought against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chairman and the three government-nominated commissioners over the failure to set an elections date, calling it “frivolous” and an “abuse” of the court process.
GECOM Chairman James Patterson and government-nominated commissioners Vincent Alexander, Desmond Trotman and Charles Corbin were named as the defendants in the case by complainant Marcel Gaskin, a private citizen, who accused them of “conspiracy to breach the constitution contrary to the common law.”
However, only Patterson and Trotman appeared before the court, which later learnt that Alexander and Corbin were not served with summons to appear.
The complainant alleges that during the period December 22nd, 2018 to March 9th, 2019 the defendants conspired to breach Article 106 of the Constitution, which provides for the holding of general elections in Guyana within three months from the passage of a no-confidence motion in the National Assembly.
Based on the successful December 21st, 2018 vote on the opposition-sponsored no-confidence motion against government, new general and regional elections are constitutionally due by March 21st. However, GECOM has admitted that it cannot meet the deadline. It has yet to advise the president on a possible elections date as the government-nominated commissioners and their opposition counterparts are split on conducting a six-month national house-to-house registration exercise prior to the polls. The government-nominated commissioners say the new registration is necessary for the creation of a sanitised voters’ list for the polls.
The private criminal charge was to be prosecuted by attorneys Sanjeev Datadin and Ganesh Hira, while Patterson and Trotman were represented by attorneys Rex McKay SC, Neil Boston SC, Robert Corbin and Darren Wade.
When the matter was called yesterday morning, the prosecution was asked by the Chief Magistrate to explain the charge before the court.
Datadin then explained that they intended to show the court that the four defendants, together in a single vote, breached Article 106.
This then led to the Chief Magistrate stating that it was the court’s opinion, having read the particulars of the charge and the statements, that they did not amount to an offence and appeared to be frivolous. She noted that the claim in the charge has no serious purpose or value, which is one of the legal definitions for frivolous. She further pointed out to the prosecutors that a decision was yet to be made in the matter at the centre of the charge and as a result, she called the charge borderline vexatious and an abuse of the court.
Datadin then attempted to tell the court that the prosecution was prepared to lay over authorities and arguments to persuade the court otherwise.
Boston, who spoke on behalf of the team of defence attorneys, described the complaint as a “Mickey Mouse” charge. He further argued that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the charge, which he said was of a nuisance value.
Boston contended that what Gaskin is asking is that the government-nominated commissioners see eye to eye with their opposition counterparts, or they would be deemed to have conspired.
According to the attorney, the charge did not disclose an offence known to the lands of Guyana.
Datadin maintained that the offence exists at common law and added that he intended to rely on and present cases to the court in support of same and requested a short adjournment in order to do so.
Chief Magistrate McLennan then stated that having heard the arguments made by the prosecution and the defence, the court saw no need to grant leave to the prosecution to lay over any authority to the court. She stated that she would not consider any further arguments and maintained that the charge was frivolous and an abuse of the process. Using the court’s authority under the Administration of Justice Act, she then dismissed the charge and discharged all of the accused.
A small group of PPP/C supporters staged a protest against Patterson and the government-nominated commissioners outside of the court compound.