Attorney Hugh Wildman has described as “palpably wrong” Monday’s Supreme Court decision to throw out his client’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.

Wildman, who was adamant that the court had been misguided, said he would be appealing the matter on behalf of his client, the People’s National Party’s (PNP’s) Paul Buchanan, with filings to be made no later than this week.

“The ruling is palpably wrong because we are saying that the man chose the right route that the law stipulates him to choose, which is the Constituted Authority. So how could it be said that he should have gone by election petition? There was no delay. He applied to the Constituted Authority within the time and he applied for judicial review within the time so there can be no delay, but the court is saying he should have gone by election petition, rubbish! He chose the method the law said he should choose,” Wildman told the Jamaica Observer.

The attorney was also of the opinion that the court was even further misguided in its ruling, charging that it had ignored critical evidence.

“They have not dealt with the mountain of breaches that he has identified why the election should have been voided. They have not dealt with those issues, which is what they should have focused to see whether the Constituted Authority abused their discretion by not sending it to the Election Court based on those breaches,” Wildman contended.

Supreme Court Judge Justice Sonya Wint-Blair, in handing down the ruling Monday following two days of hearing, said the court had 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 knock-out blow to the success of this application,” Justice Wint-Blair declared 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 Wint-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.

As to the decision by Buchanan’s legal team to seek a judicial review she 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. The time frame set down by the law is a knock-out blow to the success of this application,” Wint-Blair declared in refusing the application.

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

He alleged that 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.

In the meantime, the ruling JLP, in a quick response, said the ruling “is a victory for the rule of law and Jamaica’s electoral system”.

Jamaica Labour Party Communication Chairman Senator Abka Fitz-Henley said the party was not surprised by the court’s decision to dismiss the case brought by the PNP representative because of the guidance which had been given to the party by King’s Counsel and Electoral Commission of Jamaica Commissioner Tom Tavares-Finson.

“The judgment of the court today is a strike against the use of the court system to advance baseless allegations,” Fitz-Henley said.