Last night we told you about the strike out motion for Orlando Habet's Election Petition against Elvin Penner that was being heard in front of Justice Minette Hafiz.
So far, the interpretation of the rule of time limits has been a major issue for Habet's petition.
Back when they filed for leave to bring the petition, Habet's attorneys, Said Musa and Anthony Sylvester, also filed the actual petition that they intended to bring if the court granted leave.
The court determined that this filing was irregular because Habet needed to get leave before they could file the petition.
As a result, it was struck out, but the leave was heard on April 10, and it was granted. Confusing, right?
But, it put Habet's attorneys in a time crunch, they had only a few hours to re-file a petition before the deadline at the end of the day.
But, haste makes waste, and some mix-up happened causing sections of the petition to be improperly filed.
Elvin Penner's attorney, Rodwell Williams, submitted in court today that because of this, and because of the fact that they quote, "cut and pasted" sections of the petition document which Justice Bertram already ruled inadmissible, this new document should also be struck out based on abuse of process.
This would effectively put an end to the Habet election petition at the Supreme Court level.
He and Sylvester argued their points this afternoon in court, and we spoke to both sides when they came out.
Here's what they had to say about the current situation:
Reporter
"He is saying that your case should be struck out for base on non-compliance and abuse of process. Explain to us how you feel about that."
Anthony Sylvestre
"There has in fact been no non-compliance. There has been no non-compliance of none of the election petition. That is the representation of the People's Act and that was the point we made to the judge that there has been no such non-compliance."
Rodwell Williams, Penner's Attorney
"Our submission really is the document that they filed - the petition they filed dated 2nd April is the same petition that the court struck out which petition is also dated 2nd April. The court struck it out on the 10th April and turn around and gave them leave to present a true petition."
"Instead of doing that, incidentally the court also ordered that the registry be kept open late to facilitate their filing. Instead of doing that, they cut, paste and jammed up papers together and presented the same petition dated 2nd April which the court just struck out and the same two affidavits dated 30th March even before the petition of the 2nd April came into being."
"So they filed those same documents once more. That is our view makes those documents a nullity because the court when it gave the leave on the 10th, you can't have a petition pre-dating the date of your leave. You are given leave to file one - to swear one and you can't therefore file and swear one which existed before you get leave, which makes it a nullity and an abuse."
Alfonso Noble, Guardian
"Is this sloppy legal work?"
Rodwell Williams, Penner's Attorney
"I am not the author of it, so I wouldn't want to categorize it. Others are the authors of that work and you will have to draw your own conclusion. But certainly in my view it was an abuse of the court's process to have put that document before the court especially after the circumstance that the court gave you an opportunity by holding open the registry beyond the usual time to allow you to present a true petition. Not a petition that the court struck out that same day and not a petition that is sworn on the 2nd April before you get leave. Not an affidavit that is sworn before the petition exist on the 30th March and put that before the court. In my view that is a nullity and has to be treated as though it never happened, therefore it means that the 21 days expires and you have nothing before the court to commence the election petition process."
Justice Bertram has reserved judgment on the strike out motion for May 24.
Email
Print