Lawyers for both the petitioners and respondents in the election petitions case continued on Tuesday with strong arguments in the High Court in Kingstown before Judge Esco Henry.
Lead Counsel for the petitioners, Stanley “Stalky” John, QC, presented what he termed as “appealing points”, and argued that there are principles that were violated to the rules of the electoral process during the December 9th 2015 general elections.
The senior counsel for the petitioners further highlighted the importance of the secrecy of the vote noting that voters should be disenfranchised. John argued that it was not enough to say mistakes were made, either willfully or erroneously, and strengthened his call for the ballots to be viewed.
At the lunch break our news team spoke with the legal team representing the petitioners.
Basing his arguments on whether the evidence is sufficient or if there are justifications to inspect the ballot boxes, lead counsel for the respondents, Douglas Mendes said that an inspection may not be required if the information can be obtained through other means.
He questioned if the petitioners put forward enough evidence or if they are trying to look for ballots to find evidence, noting that such evidence should have been put forward before in court, before asking for the inspection of ballots and counter foils.
Mendes told the court it is not enough for the petitioners to submit allegations and then make then make an application to the court for inspection of the ballot boxes.
When our news team caught up with the lawyers for the respondents, they were “tight lipped”.
The election petition case continues on Wednesday at the High Court at 9am.
