Letter of the Day | Why Buchanan’s case failed before it began

THE EDITOR, Madam:

The recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the matter involving Mr Paul Buchanan offers an important and sobering lesson for all Jamaicans who turn to the courts for electoral redress. Justice Sonya Wint-Blair’s decision made it unmistakably clear that Mr Buchanan’s challenge did not fail because of the substance of his concerns, but because of a critical and irreversible procedural error: he filed his application outside the strict statutory time limit established by Parliament for election challenges.

Election law in Jamaica imposes firm deadlines for contesting the validity of election results. These timelines are not flexible, negotiable, or extendable — not even by the Supreme Court. By the time Mr Buchanan filed his application for judicial review on October 8, the mandatory period for filing any such challenge had already expired. As the judge noted, this deficiency delivered a “knockout blow” to the case before it even began.

Even if the court were inclined to agree with Mr Buchanan on every other issue — even if it compelled the Constituted Authority to act — the outcome would still be void. The law simply does not permit any electoral petition to proceed once the statutory clock has run out. To attempt to resuscitate such a challenge is to ask the court to perform a legal impossibility.

This unfortunate episode highlights a broader truth: litigants must understand the law, especially statutory deadlines, before launching legal battles that are doomed from the outset. Too often, individuals spend substantial sums on attorneys and consume valuable judicial time, only to discover that their case is barred by clear legislative provisions. Our courts are already overburdened; they should not be asked to entertain claims that the law itself makes futile.

In the interest of justice, efficiency, and the responsible use of public resources, citizens must inform themselves – at minimum – of the legal framework governing their grievances. Failure to do so results not only in personal financial loss, but in the unnecessary expenditure of the court’s time and taxpayers’ money.

DUDLEY MCLEAN II

dm15094@gmail.com