{"id":287209,"date":"2022-07-06T17:13:22","date_gmt":"2022-07-06T21:13:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dominicanewsonline.com\/news\/?p=287209"},"modified":"2022-07-07T18:21:39","modified_gmt":"2022-07-07T22:21:39","slug":"ccj-dismisses-uwps-election-petition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dominicanewsonline.com\/news\/homepage\/homepage-carousel\/ccj-dismisses-uwps-election-petition\/","title":{"rendered":"CCJ dismisses UWP\u2019s election petition"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n\r\nA third attempt by the United Workers Party (UWP) to adjudicate claims that Dominica\u2019s 2019 election was invalid, has not ended in their favour. \u00a0This, as the Trinidad and Tobago-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), dismissed an application filed by members of the party for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the case of Cuffy and Others v Skerrit and Others.\r\n\r\nThe CCJ in its ruling yesterday, July 6, 2022, agreed with the Court of Appeal that the Petitioners who challenged the results of the last General Elections by way of election petitions, had no right to appeal the decision of the High Court judge to strike out their petitions.\r\n\r\nIn the wake of Dominica\u2019s last general election held on December 9, 2019, in which the UWP lost by an 18-3 margin to the incumbent Dominica Labour Party government, ten election petitions were filed at the High Court claiming that the elections were conducted in a manner contrary to established electoral laws and regulations and that in ten constituencies, the candidates declared to be the winners had not been validly elected. They sought to have the court overturn the results in St Joseph, Mahaut, Morne Jaune, La Plaine, Castle Bruce, Salybia, Roseau Valley, Roseau Central, Roseau South, and Wesley constituencies.\r\n\r\nThe respondents (among whom were the Chief Elections Officer, various Returning Officers, the Commissioner of Police, members of the Electoral Commission, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General) applied to strike out the petitions submitting to the court that the petitions lacked sufficient details. The trial Judge, Justice Raulston Glasgow, agreed and on October 14, 2020, struck off all ten election petitions and awarded costs of $5,000.00 to the respondents.\r\n\r\nUnsatisfied with the ruling, the Petitioners filed Notices of Appeal against the Judge\u2019s decision. The respondents raised the issue that the Court of Appeal had no authority to hear the appeal. They stated that ss 40(6) and (7) of the Constitution only permit appeals against a final decision in law. They claimed that the decision of the trial judge was not final, it was what the law refers to as \u201cinterlocutory.\u201d This means that the trial judge dismissed the petitions at an intermediate stage and as such, he did not determine the merits of the petitions. Consequently, there could be no right to appeal the decision. The Court of Appeal agreed with the respondents and declined to hear the appeal.\r\n\r\nThe Petitioners subsequently applied to the CCJ, the highest municipal court in the region, for Special Leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal, which the court determined on written submissions that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application.\r\n\r\nIn a judgment authored by CCJ President Mr. Justice Saunders, the Court held that in order to determine what is a final decision in ss 40(6) and (7), one must look at the meaning, aim, history, rationale and context of those constitutional sub-sections. The CCJ noted the numerous Commonwealth Caribbean cases which stated that election petitions must be determined \u201cexpeditiously\u201d so that the legitimacy of a government does not remain in question.\r\n\r\nThe CCJ found that the trial judge did not determine the merits of the petitions, meaning that Justice Glasglow did not reach the stage where he would have determined the question of whether a candidate was validly elected or not. Instead, he struck out the petitions on procedural grounds. Accordingly, the decision of the trial judge was not final, but interlocutory.\r\n\r\nThe Court disagreed with the Petitioners\u2019 argument that their appeal should be heard in light of the importance of the petitions.\r\n\r\nThe CCJ further noted, however, that the Constitution guarantees every person in Dominica the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. A very high value is placed on that right. Therefore, if a Petitioner complains at a stage before the trial of their petition (an interlocutory stage), that their right to a fair hearing has been violated, then the Court of Appeal should assume the authority to hear that complaint. Nevertheless, the CCJ took the view that in this case, no issue arose as to whether the Petitioners had not received a fair hearing.\r\n\r\n\u201cThe Court found that they were afforded a fair or reasonable opportunity to be heard,\u201d Mr Justice Saunders averred.\r\n\r\nMr Justice Jamadar in his concurring judgment found that the right to be registered to vote is at the heart of free and fair elections which he says is part of the \u201cbasic deep structure of Dominican constitutionalism.\u201d\r\n\r\nA complaint which appeared in most of the petitions was that the election officials failed to use the revised annual list and supplementary register as required by law. The trial judge acknowledged the clear failure to follow that law. Mr. Justice Jamadar found that on constitutional grounds, the Court of Appeal arguably may have had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, irrespective of whether the decision was considered to be final or not. However, except for what he called \u201c this small nuance,\u201d he basically agreed with the Court\u2019s decision.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the CCJ refused the application for special leave and thus upheld the orders of the Court of Appeal. No order as to costs was made, since the CCJ considered that efforts by the citizenry, in good faith, to call attention to perceived deficiencies in the electoral process, should not be discouraged.\r\n\r\nThe members on the Bench were the Honourable Mr Justice Adrian Saunders, President of the Court, sitting with the Honourable Justices Wit, Anderson, Rajnauth-Lee and Jamadar.\r\n\r\nThe Applicants\/Petitioners were represented by Mr. Alair Shepherd Queen\u2019s Counsel (QC) and \u00a0Ms. Zahidha James and Ms. Najmah Reece.\r\n\r\nSenior Counsel (SC), Anthony Astaphan, who led a battery of lawyers in the matter, represented the first respondent along with Mr. Lennox Lawrence and Ms. Jodie Luke. The second, third, fourth, seventh and eighth respondents were represented by Ms. Heather Felix-Evans. The ninth respondent was represented by Mr. Anthony Astaphan SC and Mr. Stephen Isidore. The tenth, eleventh and twelfth respondents were represented by Mr. Levi Peter, the Attorney General, Mrs. Vanica Joseph and Ms. Nadira Lando.\r\n\r\nFollowing the ruling of the court, SC Astaphan described the decision of the court as \u201cvery important.\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cThe basis of the decision is that whether the Judge was right or wrong. The CCJ was clearly of the view that it was within the competence of the High Court judge \u2026to strike out [the] petition which in his opinion after consideration of the allegations made in the petition to strike them out and not disclosing the cause of action,\u201d he posited.\r\n\r\n\u201cThat\u2019s the basis upon which the petitions were struck out, that’s the basis upon which the Court of Appeal said it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the judgment on the petitions and that\u2019s the basis upon which the CCJ held that it was not a final decision,\u201d Astaphan said.\r\n\r\nHe further asserted that the petitions filed after the 2019 general elections are \u201cdead as are the election petitions filed in 2005, 2009 and the criminal complaints that were filed in the Magistrate\u2019s Court\u2026all of which are now dead as a result of the decision by the CCJ\u201d.\r\n\r\nAttorney General Levi Peter who spoke to State owned DBS radio following the ruling said Dominicans can expect a change by way of reforms in the next general election.\r\n\r\n\u201cHopefully \u00a0we will not have a repeat of this saga, which has happened in virtually every election, I think from probably about 2005. It is a pernicious insertion into the politics in the Caribbean and certainly in closer regions, that every election virtually, that is held, the losing party refuses to accept that they’ve lost and I think that perhaps an exception is the recent situation in Grenada, where the Outgoing Prime Minister, Dr. Keith Mitchell, actually conceded formally and publicly and I have no doubt that that will allow Grenada to breathe and move forward.\u201d\r\n\r\nHe advised the opposition to take a \u201cleaf out of that book\u201d and accept defeat.\r\n\r\nDominica News Online will publish the comments of Lennox Linton and Zahida James in a subsequent article.\r\n\r\nBelow is the full version of CCJ judgement.\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dominicanewsonline.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/CCJ-land-matter-642x415.jpg\")
\r\n\r\nA third attempt by the United Workers Party (UWP) to adjudicate claims that Dominica\u2019s 2019 election was invalid, has not ended in their favour. \u00a0This, as the Trinidad and Tobago-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), dismissed an application filed by members of the party for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the case of Cuffy and Others v Skerrit and Others.\r\n\r\nThe CCJ in its ruling yesterday, July 6, 2022, agreed with the Court of Appeal that the Petitioners who challenged the results of the last General Elections by way of election petitions, had no right to appeal the decision of the High Court judge to strike out their petitions.\r\n\r\nIn the wake of Dominica\u2019s last general election held on December 9, 2019, in which the UWP lost by an 18-3 margin to the incumbent Dominica Labour Party government, ten election petitions were filed at the High Court claiming that the elections were conducted in a manner contrary to established electoral laws and regulations and that in ten constituencies, the candidates declared to be the winners had not been validly elected. They sought to have the court overturn the results in St Joseph, Mahaut, Morne Jaune, La Plaine, Castle Bruce, Salybia, Roseau Valley, Roseau Central, Roseau South, and Wesley constituencies.\r\n\r\nThe respondents (among whom were the Chief Elections Officer, various Returning Officers, the Commissioner of Police, members of the Electoral Commission, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General) applied to strike out the petitions submitting to the court that the petitions lacked sufficient details. The trial Judge, Justice Raulston Glasgow, agreed and on October 14, 2020, struck off all ten election petitions and awarded costs of $5,000.00 to the respondents.\r\n\r\nUnsatisfied with the ruling, the Petitioners filed Notices of Appeal against the Judge\u2019s decision. The respondents raised the issue that the Court of Appeal had no authority to hear the appeal. They stated that ss 40(6) and (7) of the Constitution only permit appeals against a final decision in law. They claimed that the decision of the trial judge was not final, it was what the law refers to as \u201cinterlocutory.\u201d This means that the trial judge dismissed the petitions at an intermediate stage and as such, he did not determine the merits of the petitions. Consequently, there could be no right to appeal the decision. The Court of Appeal agreed with the respondents and declined to hear the appeal.\r\n\r\nThe Petitioners subsequently applied to the CCJ, the highest municipal court in the region, for Special Leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal, which the court determined on written submissions that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application.\r\n\r\nIn a judgment authored by CCJ President Mr. Justice Saunders, the Court held that in order to determine what is a final decision in ss 40(6) and (7), one must look at the meaning, aim, history, rationale and context of those constitutional sub-sections. The CCJ noted the numerous Commonwealth Caribbean cases which stated that election petitions must be determined \u201cexpeditiously\u201d so that the legitimacy of a government does not remain in question.\r\n\r\nThe CCJ found that the trial judge did not determine the merits of the petitions, meaning that Justice Glasglow did not reach the stage where he would have determined the question of whether a candidate was validly elected or not. Instead, he struck out the petitions on procedural grounds. Accordingly, the decision of the trial judge was not final, but interlocutory.\r\n\r\nThe Court disagreed with the Petitioners\u2019 argument that their appeal should be heard in light of the importance of the petitions.\r\n\r\nThe CCJ further noted, however, that the Constitution guarantees every person in Dominica the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. A very high value is placed on that right. Therefore, if a Petitioner complains at a stage before the trial of their petition (an interlocutory stage), that their right to a fair hearing has been violated, then the Court of Appeal should assume the authority to hear that complaint. Nevertheless, the CCJ took the view that in this case, no issue arose as to whether the Petitioners had not received a fair hearing.\r\n\r\n\u201cThe Court found that they were afforded a fair or reasonable opportunity to be heard,\u201d Mr Justice Saunders averred.\r\n\r\nMr Justice Jamadar in his concurring judgment found that the right to be registered to vote is at the heart of free and fair elections which he says is part of the \u201cbasic deep structure of Dominican constitutionalism.\u201d\r\n\r\nA complaint which appeared in most of the petitions was that the election officials failed to use the revised annual list and supplementary register as required by law. The trial judge acknowledged the clear failure to follow that law. Mr. Justice Jamadar found that on constitutional grounds, the Court of Appeal arguably may have had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, irrespective of whether the decision was considered to be final or not. However, except for what he called \u201c this small nuance,\u201d he basically agreed with the Court\u2019s decision.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the CCJ refused the application for special leave and thus upheld the orders of the Court of Appeal. No order as to costs was made, since the CCJ considered that efforts by the citizenry, in good faith, to call attention to perceived deficiencies in the electoral process, should not be discouraged.\r\n\r\nThe members on the Bench were the Honourable Mr Justice Adrian Saunders, President of the Court, sitting with the Honourable Justices Wit, Anderson, Rajnauth-Lee and Jamadar.\r\n\r\nThe Applicants\/Petitioners were represented by Mr. Alair Shepherd Queen\u2019s Counsel (QC) and \u00a0Ms. Zahidha James and Ms. Najmah Reece.\r\n\r\nSenior Counsel (SC), Anthony Astaphan, who led a battery of lawyers in the matter, represented the first respondent along with Mr. Lennox Lawrence and Ms. Jodie Luke. The second, third, fourth, seventh and eighth respondents were represented by Ms. Heather Felix-Evans. The ninth respondent was represented by Mr. Anthony Astaphan SC and Mr. Stephen Isidore. The tenth, eleventh and twelfth respondents were represented by Mr. Levi Peter, the Attorney General, Mrs. Vanica Joseph and Ms. Nadira Lando.\r\n\r\nFollowing the ruling of the court, SC Astaphan described the decision of the court as \u201cvery important.\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cThe basis of the decision is that whether the Judge was right or wrong. The CCJ was clearly of the view that it was within the competence of the High Court judge \u2026to strike out [the] petition which in his opinion after consideration of the allegations made in the petition to strike them out and not disclosing the cause of action,\u201d he posited.\r\n\r\n\u201cThat\u2019s the basis upon which the petitions were struck out, that’s the basis upon which the Court of Appeal said it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the judgment on the petitions and that\u2019s the basis upon which the CCJ held that it was not a final decision,\u201d Astaphan said.\r\n\r\nHe further asserted that the petitions filed after the 2019 general elections are \u201cdead as are the election petitions filed in 2005, 2009 and the criminal complaints that were filed in the Magistrate\u2019s Court\u2026all of which are now dead as a result of the decision by the CCJ\u201d.\r\n\r\nAttorney General Levi Peter who spoke to State owned DBS radio following the ruling said Dominicans can expect a change by way of reforms in the next general election.\r\n\r\n\u201cHopefully \u00a0we will not have a repeat of this saga, which has happened in virtually every election, I think from probably about 2005. It is a pernicious insertion into the politics in the Caribbean and certainly in closer regions, that every election virtually, that is held, the losing party refuses to accept that they’ve lost and I think that perhaps an exception is the recent situation in Grenada, where the Outgoing Prime Minister, Dr. Keith Mitchell, actually conceded formally and publicly and I have no doubt that that will allow Grenada to breathe and move forward.\u201d\r\n\r\nHe advised the opposition to take a \u201cleaf out of that book\u201d and accept defeat.\r\n\r\nDominica News Online will publish the comments of Lennox Linton and Zahida James in a subsequent article.\r\n\r\nBelow is the full version of CCJ judgement.\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t