Appeal Court rules in favour of UNC Election Petition case continuing

Date: 
Monday, November 30, 2015 - 00:00

The Appeal Court has ruled in favour of the UNC Election Petition case continuing. 

The ruling was handed down as short whole ago, with two judges ruling in favour and one judge ruling against. [SEE VIDEO BELOW]

Chief Justice Ivor Archie ruled against but Justices Peter Jamadar and Allan Mendonca ruled for.

The UNC are challenging the decision by the Election and Boundaries Commission to extend voting by an hour on election day, a decision the EBC said it made as a result of the torrential rain.

The UNC insists that the EBC did not have the authority to do so. 

The UNC's challenge focusses mainly on six marginally seats.

The ruling means that the UNC will now have to provide cogent and credible evidence before a High Court judge to show that it was significantly disadvantaged and the EBC decision affected the results.

The PNM assumed office with 23 seats while the UNC retained 18.

Chief Justice Ivor Archie voted against the grant of leave while his colleagues, Allan Mendonca and Peter Jamadar, ruled in favour of the UNC. Both the EBC and the People’s National Movement (PNM) had challenged the decision of High Court judge Mira Dean-Armorer to approve the election petitions.

The UNC filed the election petitions for six constituencies—La Horquetta/Talparo, Toco/Sangre Grande, Tunapuna, St Joseph, Moruga/Tableland and San Fernando West within a week of its loss in the general election. 

In its petitions, the party is claiming that the EBC acted illegally when it took the decision to extend the polls to 7 pm because of bad weather and traffic. The UNC also argued that the late notice was not properly communicated to voters.

The EBC denied any wrongdoing and is contending that it acted within its remit.