On to the next one

When it comes to the power to extend voting times, the law is grey no more.

The Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) does not have the power to unilaterally change the rules, come rain or shine.

In upholding the measured and sound judgment of Justice Mira Dean-Armorer, the Court of Appeal has also sent the signal that similar unilateral changes to procedure cannot be condoned.

The case was wider than the perimeters set in court. If the EBC could change the poll hours, what else could it change? All of this is just in time for the November 28 local government election, announced yesterday by Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley. In this regard, the Court of Appeal is to be complimented for the sensible timing of its deliberations and ruling.

In handing down its judgment as readily as it did, the court has shown sensitivity to the need to pay due respect for well established electoral processes while at the same time dispensing with justice in a timely matter.

As a matter of policy it is also indisputable that the longer the law was left lingering in the clouds of uncertainty, the worse things were for our society.

While the People’s National Movement has prevailed in the sense that its victories in the five contested seats were maintained, this ruling is also a victory of sorts for the United National Congress.

Importantly, the Court of Appeal concluded the EBC acted illegally.

The three appellate judges – including Chief Justice Ivor Archie __ disagreed with the EBC’s contention that it had the power to extend the polling hours.

“We do find that the EBC exceeded its powers,” Archie said of the decision to allow for one additional hour of voting, beyond the 6 pm close of polls.

However, the Chief Justice said elections are to be conducted as prescribed by Parliament, as set out in the Representation of the People Act and the Election Rules and it would be undesirable and improper for the court to intervene, especially where there may be inconsistencies or shortfalls between the Act and the Rules. He said the Parliament would be the “proper province” to legislate any changes in the conduct of the polls.

According to Archie, the court could not invalidate the electoral process because of a few errors and there was nothing egregious to render it so outside the law as to be a non-election.

As a matter of law and policy, the judges would have been wrong to reverse the will of the people.

The question going forward now, however, is whether the Parliament will enact legislative changes to give the EBC the powers that it wrongly felt it had.

It is not unimaginable that there could come a time when poll hours should be extended.

But currently, the conditions for such an extension are prescribed by the law and do not extend to the torrential downpours which triggered the EBC’s action.

Though it was the wrong party in all of this, the EBC can claim at least one victory.

The High Court judge’s finding that the officials administering the election did not act in bad faith was upheld.

The Court of Appeal saw no reason to interfere with the first instance judge’s assessment of the evidence presented before her.