‘Knockout blow’

The Supreme Court has thrown out an application brought by the People’s National Party’s Paul Buchanan to overturn the results of the St Andrew West Central general election which he lost to Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness.

Buchanan, who was the Opposition Party’s candidate, filed an application for permission to seek judicial review of the decision of the Constituted Authority not to apply to the Election Court to void the results of the September 3 poll.

On Monday, Justice Sonya Wint-Blair refused Buchanan’s application, asserting that the time frame set down by the law is a “knockout blow” to its success.

Buchanan had made a request to the Authority for the body to apply to the Election Court to void the election result, citing irregularities, including double voting, voter intimidation, and compromised ballot boxes.

However, on September 30, the Authority refused the request, determining that the alleged irregularities did not satisfy the statutory standard required to void the election results.

Buchanan, through his attorney Hugh Wildman, in his application argued that the Authority committed a jurisdictional error by weighing and evaluating the evidence.

He said the body’s proper role is merely that of a conduit.

According to Buchanan, the Authority, having received an application with supporting evidence, had a mandatory duty under Section 52 (a)(3) of the Representation of the People Act to refer the matter to the Election Court, which is the only body empowered to determine if the standard of proof was met.

“The Authority arrogated unto itself the authority to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to void the election; however, only the Election Court has this power,” he said in his submission.

He argued that by assuming the role of the Election Court and asking the wrong question, the body’s decision to refuse the referral was “irrational, unlawful, null, and void”.

Buchanan said judicial review was the necessary and only effective remedy available to challenge the Authority’s decision.

However, the Authority maintained that it has a statutory discretion on whether or not to apply to the Election Court, even when prompted by a candidate.

It said Buchanan had an available alternative remedy, in that he could have filed his own election petition in the Supreme Court within 21 days of the election return.

Further, it said the application for judicial review was futile and an “academic” exercise because the strict statutory deadlines for challenging the election – both for a candidate’s petition (21 days) and the body’s application (28 days from the poll) – had expired before the judicial review application was filed. It said the court cannot extend these electoral deadlines.

The Authority further argued that Buchanan failed to act with the necessary alacrity required by election law, both in the 13-day delay before applying to it and the nine-day delay in filing for judicial review after its refusal.

“The candidate’s overarching remedy is an order of mandamus to compel the Authority to apply to the Election Court. However, the candidate could, of his own motion, have petitioned the Supreme Court and, in effect, challenged the election, without the Authority’s intervention.

“This would have been an effective alternate remedy, which would have yielded the same relief as being sought in the order of mandamus. At this point, the time frame for putting the matter before the Election Court is statute-barred before the application was even filed,” stated the Constituted Authority, through its attorney, Deputy Solicitor General Lisa White.

In its October 1 decision, the Authority said Buchanan relied on Section 37 (e) of the Election Petition Act, which deals with violence or irregularities capable of distorting or subverting the process of free and fair elections. It concluded, however, that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold required under the statute.

Holness won the seat with 7,054 votes to Buchanan’s 4,953. The margin prompted public debate because Holness had been trailing by nearly 100 votes after 87 of the 105 ballot boxes were counted. The remaining 18 boxes, which shifted the outcome, came from polling stations at Seaward Gardens Primary and Infant School, according to the director of elections.

Wint-Blair refused Buchanan’s application, noting that the court could not extend the time set down by Parliament in the laws governing elections.

She said the period during which the Authority could have applied to the Election Court has passed, and any application is statute-barred.

The judge said the effect of compelling the body to make an application is therefore “futile”.

She said there is a need for finality in electoral matters, noting that this protects the “legitimacy, integrity and certainty of resolutions” concerning electoral disputes.

“This court finds that the threshold test has not been surmounted. The grounds before the court do not demonstrate pass the test of arguability based on the foregoing,” she said.

“The orders sought in the notice of application filed on October 8, 2025 are refused.”

No order was made for costs.

kimone.francis@gleanerjm.com