In the Court of Appeal Linyon Sanzman name maintained |10 December 2016

The names Linyon Sanzman and Lafors Sosyal Demokratik will be maintained, while Wavel Ramkalawan has lost his two cases against the Electoral Commission regarding the decisions taken by the Constitutional Court following the December 2015 Presidential election run-off.

These decisions came out in the rulings by the Court of Appeal yesterday.

The Court of Appeal quashed the decisions by judges Bernardin Renaud and Durai Karunakaran preventing any group or party from using the names Linyon Sanzman and Lafors Sosyal Demokratik.

Judge Renaud had quashed the Electoral Commission’s decision to register the political party named Linyon Sanzman despite Martin Aglaé being the first to register the party at 9.06am on March 10, 2016. It was only at 1.36pm on the same day that another group, led by Roger Mancienne, showed up to register for the elections under the same name of Linyon Sanzman. This means Mr Aglaé’s application preceded Mr Mancienne’s and the Election Commission, but Judge Renaud quashed the Electoral Commission’s decision to allocate the name Linyon Sanzman to Martin Aglaé saying the first come first served rule used by the Electoral Commission was incorrect.

On August 16, 2016 Linyon Demokratik Seselwa made a second application before the Supreme Court for judicial review, stating that “allocating the name Linyon Sanzman to another political party would be unreasonable and irrational as it is likely to deceive the members of the party or public”. It also compelled the Electoral Commission not to accept the candidature of any person from the party to contest the National Assembly election.

According to the final judgment, the case did not follow the normal route of case allocation which is through the registry via the office of the chief justice, in this case the acting chief justice. As the Supreme Court was in vacation, Judge Karunakaran assigned himself the case and issued a number of wide-ranging orders not asked for in the application.

The next day, August 17, 2016, Linyon Demokratik Seselwa made another application for judicial review, this time challenging the decision of the Electoral Commission for granting a registration to Lafors Sosyal Demokratik on the ground that the acronym of LDS (Linyon Demokratik Seselwa) will confuse the public with the acronym LSD (Lafors Sosyal Demokratik).

The Court of Appeal said “the acronym of a political party is for nothing in the determination before the Electoral Commission,” adding that “the law is with reference to the name not the acronym”.

Therefore the application should have failed on the question of “sufficient interest”.

On the same day, Linyon Demokratik Seselwa made another application for a provisional injunction for quashing the decision of the Electoral Commission to register Lafors Sosyal Demokratik led by its party leader and president Charles Jimmy Gabriel and also compelled the Electoral Commission not to accept the candidature of any person for the party.

According to the judgment, “parties have in this case used the process of the court to score political points” and this is unacceptable, adding that “the judge took the case for no other reason than an upsurge in professional zeal” and “this is nothing more than abuse of court process by a judge”.

As for Wavel Ramkalawan he had challenged the decision by the Constitutional Court where the judges decided that the terms “votes cast” and “valid votes cast” means one and the same thing.

The Constitutional Court came up with the decision after Mr Ramkalawan had petitioned the court to rule that none of the two candidates – James Michel and himself – had obtained the absolute majority of the votes cast (50%), and to nullify the results of the presidential run-off.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal said “for the determination of the over 50% threshold, the votes received by the respective candidates should be counted against the valid votes cast and not against the number of ballots that found their way into the ballot box”.

It adds that a distinction should be drawn in law between the words ‘ballot’, ‘vote’ and ‘vote cast’, ‘valid votes’ and ‘votes received’.

The court then found the appeal had no merit and dismissed it.

Mr Ramkalawan’s second case challenged the decision of the Constitutional Court which decided, that illegal practices had occurred in the 2015 presidential election but were not such that would lead to the annulment of the election, and that proof of agency had not been made out against Mr Michel who was the successful candidate.

In its final decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the basis that all grounds raised have failed.

It added that the Constitutional Court did not err in applying Seychelles law as to agency for the determination of the relationship between the alleged agents and Mr Michel on whether or not the latter had committed illegal acts; that the impugned non-compliance with electoral law were insufficient for a declaration that the election should have been voided or that a recount was called for; that the few illegal practices that were found proved were not by themselves or by other attendant circumstances of such a nature as to go to the very root of the election so as to render it void; that the burden and the standard of proof was properly applied in the case, and that the conclusions on the individual cases where the Court found no agency and no illegal practice cannot be impeached.