PAUL CHOW FILES APPEAL BEFORE THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL!
The leader of the Democratic Party, Mr. Paul Chow, this week filed his appeal against the Constitutional Court judgment which dismissed the petition which he had filed seeking a declaration from the Court to declare the elections dates unconstitutional. Chow has proved all the pundits wrong when he promptly filed his appeal this week proving that the allegations made in certain publications recently that he intended to delay the filing of his appeal and then seek a stay of execution, to delay the elections were all false.
The Memorandum of Appeal which has an unprecedented 32 grounds of appeal is expected to be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday 23rd April 2007 at 9.00am. Contrary to the bias reporting on SBC and in the SPPF party rags, that the petition was brought by Chow merely to procrastinate and was summarily dismissed by the Courts because it was frivolous and without merit, Judge Karunakaran, in particular did remark that the petition does have merit and has been clearly brought by Chow in order to avert the danger of an unconstitutional election being held.
The Judge stated: “I diligently analysed the eloquent argument advanced by Mr. Elizabeth, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his stance on the interpretation of the Constitutional provisions.” The Judge also commented in the Constitutional Court case that: “In the present case, the petitioner contended that the instant petition is not a frivolous or vexatious one. It has been filed with a bona fide intention to avert the danger of electing a National Assembly in contravention of the Constitution. Furthermore the petitioner contended that it is not an abuse of process, when aggrieved person petitions the Constitutional Court seeking redress for the violation of the Constitutional provisions. Having regard to all the circumstances of this particular case, I find that the petitioner has come before this court in this matter with good intention.”
The Judge concluded that “In the circumstances, I quite agree with the submission of Mr. Elizabeth in that the instant petition before the Court is not frivolous or vexatious. There is no abuse of process of the Court by the petitioner in this matter and so I hold. Hence, I decline to uphold the submission of the Attorney General under ground 3.”
