MEDIA RELEASE

To: All Media Houses

From: The Hon: Kamla Persad-Bissessar S.C.
Political Leader of the Peoples Partnership
Peoples Partnership to File Election Petitions to Declare Elections Held on
September 7, 2015 Null and Void
A decision has been taken to challenge the results of the General Election
based on legal advice the Peoples Partnership has received. The
challenge is based on the sudden decision of the EBC to extend the time
for voting from 6pm to 7pm throughout the country without any official
notification to the Peoples Partnership and its constituent parties.
The rules which govern a general election are quite clear. Strict adherence
to these Rules is absolutely necessary to minimize and avoid
irregularities. Failure to do so will result in allegations and perceptions of
unfairness and favouritism.
Information and data received by the party strongly suggested that the
People's Partnership was comfortably ahead in the polls at 6pm. The
march to victory adversely affected by the sudden unilateral decision by
the EBC to extend hours of the poll from 6pm to 7pm.
The EBC cannot and should not change the rules of engagement without
giving proper notice to candidates, political parties and voters. We have
received reports that citizens were unable to cast their vote at certain
polling stations because the officials of the EBC were themselves unaware
or uncertain about the decision to extend the time of voting until 7pm.
Additionally, many citizens were unaware of this extension of time and
hence did not cast their vote.
Rule 27 (1) of the election rules is quite clear: the taking of the poll at
each polling station shall be between 6 0'clock in the morning and 6
o'clock in the afternoon of the same day. Any suspension or adjournment
must be based on fair and adequate prior public notice to ensure there is
a level playing field. Thus, the poll could have been adjourned to the
following day to facilitate those who were unable to cast their vote for
good reason. This has in fact happened in the past.

We have been advised that the decision by the EBC to give an extra hour
undermines the legal framework which governed the conduct of the
general election and was tantamount of the shifting of the political goal
post at the end of the game. This might have very well affected the
integrity of the process and the results in critical constituencies.
This is a serious and important violation of the spirit and intention of the
Constitution, the Representation of the People's Act and the election
rules. We will therefore file these election's petitions to ensure that the
rule of law is upheld and justice is done.
Kamla Persad-Bissessar S.C.
September 9th 2015

ACTS OF PARLIAMENT
THE PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ACT,1952
Grounds for declaring the election of a returned candidate to be voidGrounds for which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared
to have been electedTransmission of orders to the Central Government and its publication18. Grounds for declaring the election of a returned candidate to be
void.- (1) if the Supreme Court is of opinion,_
(a) that the offence of bribery or undue influence at the election has been
committed by the returned candidate or by any person with the consent of the
returned candidate; or
(b) that the result of he election has been materially affected_
(i) by the improper reception or refusal of a vote, or
(ii) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of
any rules or orders made under this Act; or
(iii) by reason of the fact that the nomination of any candidate (other than the

successful candidate), who has not withdrawn his candidature, has been wrongly
accepted; or
(c) that the nomination of any candidate has been wrongly rejected or the
nomination of the successful candidate has been wrongly accepted;
the Supreme Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the offences of bribery and undue influence at
an election have the same meaning as in Chapter IX A of the Indian Penal Code.
19. Grounds for which a candidate other than the returned candidate may
be declared to have been elected.- If any person who has lodged an election
petition has, in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidate,
claimed a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected
and the Supreme Court is of opinion that in fact the petitioner or such other
candidate received a majority of the valid votes, the Supreme Court shall, after
declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void, declare the petitioner or
such other candidate, as the case may be, to have been duly elected:
Provided that the petitioner or such other candidate shall not be declared to be duly
elected if it is proved that the election of such candidate would have been void if he
had been the returned candidate and a petition had been presented calling in
question his election.
20. Transmission of orders to the Central Government and its publication.The Supreme Court shall, after announcing the orders made under section 17, send
a copy thereof to the Central Government, and on receipt of such copy the Central
Government shall forthwith cause the order to be published in the Official Gazette.

Election Contests
An election is the process of choosing a person to fill an office. An election contest
is a right of action conferred on every candidate to contest the certification of
nomination or the certificate of vote as made by the appropriate officials in any
election[i]. It is a post-election contest between two competing candidates[ii].
Fraud, corruption, or irregularities in regard to the method of holding an election in a
division can affect the entire vote. Thus an election contest is a special proceeding
created by the legislature to provide a remedy for elections tainted by fraud,
illegality, or other irregularity[iii].
Generally, there are two types of election contests[iv]:

Motion seeking to oust and replace the certified winner; and

Motion seeking to declare an election void altogether.

The fundamental purpose of an election contest is to ascertain the true will of the
electorate[v]. Moreover, an election contest provides a simple and speedy means
of contesting elections. Additionally, an election contest presupposes a full and fair
litigation of election disputes in an expeditious manner[vi]. The remedy provided in
an election contest is a statutory one and equity cannot be invoked to determine an
elections validity. An election can be contested only for matters that would
impeach the fairness of the result. An election to any public office can be contested
on the following grounds[vii]:

When illegal votes have been received;

When legal votes rejected at the polls, sufficient to change the result;

Where any error is committed by any board of canvassers in counting the

votes or declaring the result of the election.

There is no provision under the common law to contest an election. The right to
contest an election exists only under the constitutional and statutory provisions. An
election contest is a special statutory proceeding. One who seeks the benefit of a
statutory proceeding must comply with all the procedural terms of the statute.
Courts cannot exceed the provisions of applicable statutes in resolving election
contests[viii].
Thus the procedure proscribed by a state must be strictly followed in deciding
election contests. The judicial determination of election contests requires strict
adherence to the constitutional and statutory provisions in the various
jurisdictions[ix]. All candidates have the right to protest the returns of an election
by filing a protest with the appropriate canvassing board[x]. In order to contest
election results, the petitioner must show that the result of the election will be
different in the absence of irregularities[xi].
A candidate intending to contest the election of a member of the House of
Representatives must file a notice of his/her intention to contest the election with
the Board of Canvassers within thirty days after the result of the election. S/he
must serve a copy of notice upon the contestee[xii].
The court or board authorized by statute or the constitution has jurisdiction to hear
an election contest. The jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the
proceedings. However, jurisdictional defects can be raised at any time[xiii]. A
judge who may be affected by the result of the decision is disqualified from sitting in
the hearing. The proper or necessary parties to election contest proceedings are

usually prescribed by each statute. The right to contest an election is generally

conferred on[xiv]:

Electors;

Candidates; or

Both.

However, a private citizen cannot initiate an election contest to remedy a public

wrong. In order to seek a remedy under election contest, the petitioner must seek
personal relief.
A petition for an election contest must present more than mere charges of fraud and
irregularity in the election. Specifications are necessary to avoid indefinite and
indeterminable inquiry[xv]. In an election contest, courts usually grant such relief
which the statutes specifically authorize. In deciding an election contest, the court
can:

uphold the entire election or declare it invalid;

declare a winner of the election or order a new election between the

candidates;

declare the election void if it concludes that it cannot determine the true
outcome of the election; or

conclude that a new election is the fairest way to ascertain the true will of the
people.

In many jurisdictions, statutory or constitutional provisions provide appeal from

election contests available in many jurisdictions. Moreover, the judgment of the
trial court can be stayed pending the decision of the appellate court. In reviewing
the trial courts findings of fact in an election contest, the appellate court will not
disturb the trial courts findings of fact unless those findings are plainly and
palpably wrong and not supported by the evidence[xvi].