Author: Myesha Broadie

The Supreme Court has refused Paul Buchanan’s application for a judicial review of the constituted authority’s decision in relation to the result of the September 3 General Election in west central St. Andrew.

Jamaica Labour Party Leader Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness claimed the seat, after defeating Mr. Buchanan who ran on a People’s National Party ticket.

In seeking to have the election results voided, Mr. Buchanan filed a lawsuit, claiming that there were ballot box irregularities, intimidation and voter suppression, among other issues.

He brought the matter before the constituted authority, which did not rule in his favour.

Mr. Buchanan then filed an application to seek judicial review of the authority’s decision.

That aspect was heard by the supreme court on Tuesday November 18.

Dr. Holness’ legal team had argued that Mr. Buchanan’s attorneys missed critical timelines.

The prime minister’s team said the aggrieved candidate ought to have paid attention to the dates for filing an election petition.

Dr. Holness’ team also argued that the authority would have had 28 days from the poll to make an application.

The material date on which any application ought to have been made to this court was October 1, 2025.

According to the prime minister’s attorneys, all the affidavits are dated before October 1, 2025, and Mr. Buchanan had the material in his possession. He filed the application on October 8.

Mr. Buchanan’s team said the application was made nine days after the authority’s ruling; and there was no delay in applying to the Supreme Court for leave.

This morning supreme court Judge Sonya Wint-Blair delivered her ruling.

In refusing the application, she noted that the unexplained delay in taking any steps to prosecute the electoral matter did not make judicial review an effective remedy when viewed within the legislative scheme.

She added that 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 authority to make an application is therefore futile, adding that there is a need for finality in electoral matters.

This protects the legitimacy, integrity and certainty of resolutions concerning electoral disputes.

Justice Wint-Blair said the time frame set down by the law is a knock-out blow to the success of the application.

The Supreme Court has refused Paul Buchanan’s application for a judicial review of the constituted authority’s decision in relation to the result of the September 3 General Election in west central St. Andrew.

Jamaica Labour Party Leader Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness claimed the seat, after defeating Mr. Buchanan who ran on a People’s National Party ticket.

In seeking to have the election results voided, Mr. Buchanan filed a lawsuit, claiming that there were ballot box irregularities, intimidation and voter suppression, among other issues.

He brought the matter before the constituted authority, which did not rule in his favour.

Mr. Buchanan then filed an application to seek judicial review of the authority’s decision.

That aspect was heard by the supreme court on Tuesday November 18.

Dr. Holness’ legal team had argued that Mr. Buchanan’s attorneys missed critical timelines.

The prime minister’s team said the aggrieved candidate ought to have paid attention to the dates for filing an election petition.

Dr. Holness’ team also argued that the authority would have had 28 days from the poll to make an application.

The material date on which any application ought to have been made to this court was October 1, 2025.

According to the prime minister’s attorneys, all the affidavits are dated before October 1, 2025, and Mr. Buchanan had the material in his possession. He filed the application on October 8.

Mr. Buchanan’s team said the application was made nine days after the authority’s ruling; and there was no delay in applying to the Supreme Court for leave.

This morning supreme court Judge Sonya Wint-Blair delivered her ruling.

In refusing the application, she noted that the unexplained delay in taking any steps to prosecute the electoral matter did not make judicial review an effective remedy when viewed within the legislative scheme.

She added that 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 authority to make an application is therefore futile, adding that there is a need for finality in electoral matters.

This protects the legitimacy, integrity and certainty of resolutions concerning electoral disputes.

Justice Wint-Blair said the time frame set down by the law is a knock-out blow to the success of the application.

The Supreme Court has refused Paul Buchanan’s application for a judicial review of the constituted authority’s decision in relation to the result of the September 3 General Election in west central St. Andrew.

Jamaica Labour Party Leader Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness claimed the seat, after defeating Mr. Buchanan who ran on a People’s National Party ticket.

In seeking to have the election results voided, Mr. Buchanan filed a lawsuit, claiming that there were ballot box irregularities, intimidation and voter suppression, among other issues.

He brought the matter before the constituted authority, which did not rule in his favour.

Mr. Buchanan then filed an application to seek judicial review of the authority’s decision.

That aspect was heard by the supreme court on Tuesday November 18.

Dr. Holness’ legal team had argued that Mr. Buchanan’s attorneys missed critical timelines.

The prime minister’s team said the aggrieved candidate ought to have paid attention to the dates for filing an election petition.

Dr. Holness’ team also argued that the authority would have had 28 days from the poll to make an application.

The material date on which any application ought to have been made to this court was October 1, 2025.

According to the prime minister’s attorneys, all the affidavits are dated before October 1, 2025, and Mr. Buchanan had the material in his possession. He filed the application on October 8.

Mr. Buchanan’s team said the application was made nine days after the authority’s ruling; and there was no delay in applying to the Supreme Court for leave.

This morning supreme court Judge Sonya Wint-Blair delivered her ruling.

In refusing the application, she noted that the unexplained delay in taking any steps to prosecute the electoral matter did not make judicial review an effective remedy when viewed within the legislative scheme.

She added that 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 authority to make an application is therefore futile, adding that there is a need for finality in electoral matters.

This protects the legitimacy, integrity and certainty of resolutions concerning electoral disputes.

Justice Wint-Blair said the time frame set down by the law is a knock-out blow to the success of the application.

The Supreme Court has refused Paul Buchanan’s application for a judicial review of the constituted authority’s decision in relation to the result of the September 3 General Election in west central St. Andrew.

Jamaica Labour Party Leader Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness claimed the seat, after defeating Mr. Buchanan who ran on a People’s National Party ticket.

In seeking to have the election results voided, Mr. Buchanan filed a lawsuit, claiming that there were ballot box irregularities, intimidation and voter suppression, among other issues.

He brought the matter before the constituted authority, which did not rule in his favour.

Mr. Buchanan then filed an application to seek judicial review of the authority’s decision.

That aspect was heard by the supreme court on Tuesday November 18.

Dr. Holness’ legal team had argued that Mr. Buchanan’s attorneys missed critical timelines.

The prime minister’s team said the aggrieved candidate ought to have paid attention to the dates for filing an election petition.

Dr. Holness’ team also argued that the authority would have had 28 days from the poll to make an application.

The material date on which any application ought to have been made to this court was October 1, 2025.

According to the prime minister’s attorneys, all the affidavits are dated before October 1, 2025, and Mr. Buchanan had the material in his possession. He filed the application on October 8.

Mr. Buchanan’s team said the application was made nine days after the authority’s ruling; and there was no delay in applying to the Supreme Court for leave.

This morning supreme court Judge Sonya Wint-Blair delivered her ruling.

In refusing the application, she noted that the unexplained delay in taking any steps to prosecute the electoral matter did not make judicial review an effective remedy when viewed within the legislative scheme.

She added that 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 authority to make an application is therefore futile, adding that there is a need for finality in electoral matters.

This protects the legitimacy, integrity and certainty of resolutions concerning electoral disputes.

Justice Wint-Blair said the time frame set down by the law is a knock-out blow to the success of the application.

The Supreme Court has refused Paul Buchanan’s application for a judicial review of the constituted authority’s decision in relation to the result of the September 3 General Election in west central St. Andrew.

Jamaica Labour Party Leader Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness claimed the seat, after defeating Mr. Buchanan who ran on a People’s National Party ticket.

In seeking to have the election results voided, Mr. Buchanan filed a lawsuit, claiming that there were ballot box irregularities, intimidation and voter suppression, among other issues.

He brought the matter before the constituted authority, which did not rule in his favour.

Mr. Buchanan then filed an application to seek judicial review of the authority’s decision.

That aspect was heard by the supreme court on Tuesday November 18.

Dr. Holness’ legal team had argued that Mr. Buchanan’s attorneys missed critical timelines.

The prime minister’s team said the aggrieved candidate ought to have paid attention to the dates for filing an election petition.

Dr. Holness’ team also argued that the authority would have had 28 days from the poll to make an application.

The material date on which any application ought to have been made to this court was October 1, 2025.

According to the prime minister’s attorneys, all the affidavits are dated before October 1, 2025, and Mr. Buchanan had the material in his possession. He filed the application on October 8.

Mr. Buchanan’s team said the application was made nine days after the authority’s ruling; and there was no delay in applying to the Supreme Court for leave.

This morning supreme court Judge Sonya Wint-Blair delivered her ruling.

In refusing the application, she noted that the unexplained delay in taking any steps to prosecute the electoral matter did not make judicial review an effective remedy when viewed within the legislative scheme.

She added that 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 authority to make an application is therefore futile, adding that there is a need for finality in electoral matters.

This protects the legitimacy, integrity and certainty of resolutions concerning electoral disputes.

Justice Wint-Blair said the time frame set down by the law is a knock-out blow to the success of the application.

The Supreme Court has refused Paul Buchanan’s application for a judicial review of the constituted authority’s decision in relation to the result of the September 3 General Election in west central St. Andrew.

Jamaica Labour Party Leader Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness claimed the seat, after defeating Mr. Buchanan who ran on a People’s National Party ticket.

In seeking to have the election results voided, Mr. Buchanan filed a lawsuit, claiming that there were ballot box irregularities, intimidation and voter suppression, among other issues.

He brought the matter before the constituted authority, which did not rule in his favour.

Mr. Buchanan then filed an application to seek judicial review of the authority’s decision.

That aspect was heard by the supreme court on Tuesday November 18.

Dr. Holness’ legal team had argued that Mr. Buchanan’s attorneys missed critical timelines.

The prime minister’s team said the aggrieved candidate ought to have paid attention to the dates for filing an election petition.

Dr. Holness’ team also argued that the authority would have had 28 days from the poll to make an application.

The material date on which any application ought to have been made to this court was October 1, 2025.

According to the prime minister’s attorneys, all the affidavits are dated before October 1, 2025, and Mr. Buchanan had the material in his possession. He filed the application on October 8.

Mr. Buchanan’s team said the application was made nine days after the authority’s ruling; and there was no delay in applying to the Supreme Court for leave.

This morning supreme court Judge Sonya Wint-Blair delivered her ruling.

In refusing the application, she noted that the unexplained delay in taking any steps to prosecute the electoral matter did not make judicial review an effective remedy when viewed within the legislative scheme.

She added that 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 authority to make an application is therefore futile, adding that there is a need for finality in electoral matters.

This protects the legitimacy, integrity and certainty of resolutions concerning electoral disputes.

Justice Wint-Blair said the time frame set down by the law is a knock-out blow to the success of the application.

The Supreme Court has refused Paul Buchanan’s application for a judicial review of the constituted authority’s decision in relation to the result of the September 3 General Election in west central St. Andrew.

Jamaica Labour Party Leader Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness claimed the seat, after defeating Mr. Buchanan who ran on a People’s National Party ticket.

In seeking to have the election results voided, Mr. Buchanan filed a lawsuit, claiming that there were ballot box irregularities, intimidation and voter suppression, among other issues.

He brought the matter before the constituted authority, which did not rule in his favour.

Mr. Buchanan then filed an application to seek judicial review of the authority’s decision.

That aspect was heard by the supreme court on Tuesday November 18.

Dr. Holness’ legal team had argued that Mr. Buchanan’s attorneys missed critical timelines.

The prime minister’s team said the aggrieved candidate ought to have paid attention to the dates for filing an election petition.

Dr. Holness’ team also argued that the authority would have had 28 days from the poll to make an application.

The material date on which any application ought to have been made to this court was October 1, 2025.

According to the prime minister’s attorneys, all the affidavits are dated before October 1, 2025, and Mr. Buchanan had the material in his possession. He filed the application on October 8.

Mr. Buchanan’s team said the application was made nine days after the authority’s ruling; and there was no delay in applying to the Supreme Court for leave.

This morning supreme court Judge Sonya Wint-Blair delivered her ruling.

In refusing the application, she noted that the unexplained delay in taking any steps to prosecute the electoral matter did not make judicial review an effective remedy when viewed within the legislative scheme.

She added that 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 authority to make an application is therefore futile, adding that there is a need for finality in electoral matters.

This protects the legitimacy, integrity and certainty of resolutions concerning electoral disputes.

Justice Wint-Blair said the time frame set down by the law is a knock-out blow to the success of the application.

The Supreme Court has refused Paul Buchanan’s application for a judicial review of the constituted authority’s decision in relation to the result of the September 3 General Election in west central St. Andrew.

Jamaica Labour Party Leader Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness claimed the seat, after defeating Mr. Buchanan who ran on a People’s National Party ticket.

In seeking to have the election results voided, Mr. Buchanan filed a lawsuit, claiming that there were ballot box irregularities, intimidation and voter suppression, among other issues.

He brought the matter before the constituted authority, which did not rule in his favour.

Mr. Buchanan then filed an application to seek judicial review of the authority’s decision.

That aspect was heard by the supreme court on Tuesday November 18.

Dr. Holness’ legal team had argued that Mr. Buchanan’s attorneys missed critical timelines.

The prime minister’s team said the aggrieved candidate ought to have paid attention to the dates for filing an election petition.

Dr. Holness’ team also argued that the authority would have had 28 days from the poll to make an application.

The material date on which any application ought to have been made to this court was October 1, 2025.

According to the prime minister’s attorneys, all the affidavits are dated before October 1, 2025, and Mr. Buchanan had the material in his possession. He filed the application on October 8.

Mr. Buchanan’s team said the application was made nine days after the authority’s ruling; and there was no delay in applying to the Supreme Court for leave.

This morning supreme court Judge Sonya Wint-Blair delivered her ruling.

In refusing the application, she noted that the unexplained delay in taking any steps to prosecute the electoral matter did not make judicial review an effective remedy when viewed within the legislative scheme.

She added that 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 authority to make an application is therefore futile, adding that there is a need for finality in electoral matters.

This protects the legitimacy, integrity and certainty of resolutions concerning electoral disputes.

Justice Wint-Blair said the time frame set down by the law is a knock-out blow to the success of the application.

The Supreme Court has refused Paul Buchanan’s application for a judicial review of the constituted authority’s decision in relation to the result of the September 3 General Election in west central St. Andrew.

Jamaica Labour Party Leader Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness claimed the seat, after defeating Mr. Buchanan who ran on a People’s National Party ticket.

In seeking to have the election results voided, Mr. Buchanan filed a lawsuit, claiming that there were ballot box irregularities, intimidation and voter suppression, among other issues.

He brought the matter before the constituted authority, which did not rule in his favour.

Mr. Buchanan then filed an application to seek judicial review of the authority’s decision.

That aspect was heard by the supreme court on Tuesday November 18.

Dr. Holness’ legal team had argued that Mr. Buchanan’s attorneys missed critical timelines.

The prime minister’s team said the aggrieved candidate ought to have paid attention to the dates for filing an election petition.

Dr. Holness’ team also argued that the authority would have had 28 days from the poll to make an application.

The material date on which any application ought to have been made to this court was October 1, 2025.

According to the prime minister’s attorneys, all the affidavits are dated before October 1, 2025, and Mr. Buchanan had the material in his possession. He filed the application on October 8.

Mr. Buchanan’s team said the application was made nine days after the authority’s ruling; and there was no delay in applying to the Supreme Court for leave.

This morning supreme court Judge Sonya Wint-Blair delivered her ruling.

In refusing the application, she noted that the unexplained delay in taking any steps to prosecute the electoral matter did not make judicial review an effective remedy when viewed within the legislative scheme.

She added that 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 authority to make an application is therefore futile, adding that there is a need for finality in electoral matters.

This protects the legitimacy, integrity and certainty of resolutions concerning electoral disputes.

Justice Wint-Blair said the time frame set down by the law is a knock-out blow to the success of the application.

The Supreme Court has refused Paul Buchanan’s application for a judicial review of the constituted authority’s decision in relation to the result of the September 3 General Election in west central St. Andrew.

Jamaica Labour Party Leader Prime Minister Dr. Andrew Holness claimed the seat, after defeating Mr. Buchanan who ran on a People’s National Party ticket.

In seeking to have the election results voided, Mr. Buchanan filed a lawsuit, claiming that there were ballot box irregularities, intimidation and voter suppression, among other issues.

He brought the matter before the constituted authority, which did not rule in his favour.

Mr. Buchanan then filed an application to seek judicial review of the authority’s decision.

That aspect was heard by the supreme court on Tuesday November 18.

Dr. Holness’ legal team had argued that Mr. Buchanan’s attorneys missed critical timelines.

The prime minister’s team said the aggrieved candidate ought to have paid attention to the dates for filing an election petition.

Dr. Holness’ team also argued that the authority would have had 28 days from the poll to make an application.

The material date on which any application ought to have been made to this court was October 1, 2025.

According to the prime minister’s attorneys, all the affidavits are dated before October 1, 2025, and Mr. Buchanan had the material in his possession. He filed the application on October 8.

Mr. Buchanan’s team said the application was made nine days after the authority’s ruling; and there was no delay in applying to the Supreme Court for leave.

This morning supreme court Judge Sonya Wint-Blair delivered her ruling.

In refusing the application, she noted that the unexplained delay in taking any steps to prosecute the electoral matter did not make judicial review an effective remedy when viewed within the legislative scheme.

She added that 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 authority to make an application is therefore futile, adding that there is a need for finality in electoral matters.

This protects the legitimacy, integrity and certainty of resolutions concerning electoral disputes.

Justice Wint-Blair said the time frame set down by the law is a knock-out blow to the success of the application.