The Supreme Court on Monday threw out People’s National Party (PNP) Member of Parliament aspirant Paul Buchanan’s application for judicial review of the Constituted Authority’s decision not to apply to the Election Court to void the results of the September 3, 2025 General Election in St Andrew West Central.

The court also found that Buchanan did not pay attention to the critical dates for filing an election petition and that his attorney gave no justification for the time lapse.

“The time frame set down by the law is a knockout blow to the success of this application,” Supreme Court Judge Justice Sonya Wint-Blair declared on Monday in dismissing Buchanan’s challenge.

“In this application, the timeline shows that for the first 13 days there was no application for leave, no petition to the Supreme Court, and no request to the authority. Timelines are a critical consideration in this application,” Justice Win-Blair said in a written judgment.

“Any delay is a factor that requires explanation. The taking of the poll was September 3, 2025, and the application to the authority was submitted on September 16, 2025. There is no indication in Mr Buchanan’s affidavit in support of this application to explain why the application to the authority was filed when it was. In other words, why did it take 13 days to lodge the request with the authority? This is vital evidence which was not placed before this court and it is considered a material omission. This is against the backdrop that electoral legislation is time-sensitive, and any approach to a court must be within the timeline set down in the law,” Justice Wint-Blair pointed out.

Buchanan, who had contested the seat held by Prime Minister and Jamaica Labour Party Leader Dr Andrew Holness for the past 28 years, lost his bid by more than 2,000 votes, but challenged the result, alleging malpractices on election day which, he insisted, compromised, in a substantial way, the fairness of the election.

In court documents he said there was double voting, voter intimidation, and compromising of the integrity of the ballot boxes, that contained the ballots of voters in areas that were regarded as PNP strongholds loyal to him.

He claimed that the route that was agreed by the returning officer to transport the ballot boxes, that was outlined to both candidates prior to the election, “was surreptitiously changed” on election night, “resulting in the said ballot boxes being taken to an area which was volatile and hostile” to his interest.

Furthermore Buchanan asserted that at various points there were large gatherings of supporters of Holness, blasting music within the prohibited area of the cluster of polling stations designed to intimidate legitimate voters who wanted to cast their vote.

On September 16, 2025, he submitted a request to the Constituted Authority asserting that serious irregularities and malpractices occurred on election day and urged the authority to apply to the Election Court to void the taking of the poll in the constituency.

The authority, however, ruled on September 30, 2025 that it would not apply to the Election Court to void the result of the election, as it had determined that the alleged irregularities did not satisfy the standard contemplated by section 37(e) of the Election Petitions Act (EPA) nor had the alleged irregularities satisfied the statutory standard.

In response, on October 8, 2025, Buchanan filed an application seeking leave to apply for judicial review of the authority’s decision.

The authority, based on sections 52A of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA), and sections 37 and 38 of the EPA, has a mandatory time frame within which to make an application to the Election Court, whether on its own motion or on behalf of a candidate. The application shall be made within 28 days of the taking of the poll.

On November 18 and December 8, Justice Wint-Blair heard arguments for Buchanan, who was represented by attorneys Hugh Wildman, Shemar Bryan, Arnaldo Brown, Maurice McCurdy, and Stacey Knight; as well as arguments presented by counsel representing the authority, Lisa White, deputy solicitor general; and Duncan Roye, instructed by the Director of State Proceedings.

In her ruling, the judge said in electoral matters, time is of the essence. “Therefore, not only must this court be satisfied that the threshold test for leave has been surmounted, but there must also be an overlay of electoral realities as a matter of law. An examination of the law discloses that there is a rigorous timeline within which an application to void a poll must be made. The Election Court is itself subject to extremely short timelines for its consideration (six months from the date of the taking of the poll) and for the delivery of judgment within 48 hours after the completion of arguments”.

Wint-Blair agreed with White’s submissions related to the time limits, saying that they are unassailable… “under electoral law”.

As to the decision by Buchanan’s legal team to seek a judicial review the judge said, “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”.

Wint-Blair further said while the court has power to quash a decision by the authority it cannot direct it to “make a particular decision”.

“The effect of making the orders sought is, in short: this court cannot extend the time set down by Parliament in the laws governing elections. The period during which the authority could have applied to the Election Court has passed, and any application is statute-barred. The effect of compelling the authority to make an application is therefore futile. There is a need for finality in electoral matters. This protects the legitimacy, integrity, and certainty of resolutions concerning electoral disputes,” Wint-Blair noted in refusing the application.

“This court finds that the threshold test has not been surmounted. The grounds before the court do not demonstrate pass the test of arguability. The orders sought in the Notice of Application… are refused,” the judge ruled.

Wildman, in his submissions, had argued among other things that the authority determined that the material before it did not meet the judicial standard of proof by asking itself the wrong question and applying the incorrect standard of proof in its determination. Additionally, he contended that “delay does not arise as a bar to the orders sought, and there is no alternative remedy to challenge the impugned decision”.

However, White countered that Buchanan had “imported a procedure into the EPA that is not contemplated by the scheme of the Act”.

“No candidate has a statutory right to go before the Election Court. The legislative scheme requires certain steps be undertaken before an application, and a candidate may only approach but cannot compel the authority, whose decision it is to grant or refuse to make the application. Parliament intended the authority to have a specialised remit, the authority is composed of natural persons. It cannot observe every polling station, so it relies on information to make decisions,” White said.

“No candidate can force the authority to act in a certain way; it must consider the factual matrix and decide if an application to the Election Court is warranted. The matter of an application is discretionary, not mandatory, as it concerns the authority, which makes the determination at a prima facie level,” she pointed out.

Furthermore, she said Buchanan ought to “have paid attention to the critical dates for filing an election petition, which were within 21 days of the return which was on September 10, 2025 to file a petition”.

“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. All the affidavits are dated before October 1, 2025, and the candidate had the material in his possession upon which he now relies, but to do nothing until he filed this application on October 8, 2025. The court cannot extend time; only the Election Court can do so, and only for three days,” she argued.

According to White, “The application for leave to apply for judicial review, and judicial review itself if granted, would be an academic exercise because the statutory period to challenge the election results has elapsed.”

“The complaints are fact-specific, not of wider application to other constituencies, and do not raise an important point that could not be decided by an election petition. The candidate cannot pursue the matter as previous cases show failure to comply with timelines renders the proceedings a nullity. Therefore, the orders sought are inimical to the administration of justice,” she declared further.