majority, held that under Article 177(4) it was entitled to entertain the Application. In their reasons delivered orally, Reynolds J took the view that a new election regime had indeed been created by Order 60; that the Constitution established separate elections for members of the National Assembly on the one hand and, on the other hand, the election of the person deemed to be President; and that Order 60 required that both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the reports and the summary of observations be submitted to the Commission. Gregory JA found that Order 60 had sufficient force to impact the interpretation of the words in Article 177(2(b) of the Constitution. Both judges concluded that the words in Article 177(2)(b) that referred to ‘more votes are cast’ must be interpreted to mean ‘more valid votes … cast within the meaning of Order 60’.12 Although in their written opinions received by the Court on 30 June the words ‘within the meaning of Order 60’ are omitted, Gregory JA nevertheless held that the words ‘if more votes are cast’ are ‘subject to the terms of Order 60’.13 Both judges ordered that ‘the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177(2)(b) … must be interpreted to mean “more valid votes are cast” in relation to the March 2, 2020 Elections’ (emphasis added).14 It is on the basis of this presumed need for interpretation of the Constitution that the majority assumed jurisdiction in this matter under Article 177(4) of the Constitution. [16] Persaud JA dissented from his colleagues in the majority. He held that the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to entertain Ms David’s Application. He considered that Parliament had not made any provisions ‘for giving effect to the provisions’ of Article 177(4), as required by Article 177(5). His further opinion was that no genuine question was raised in the Application concerning the validity of the election of the President. The Application was also premature because Article 177(4) contemplates that before it can be triggered there should be an elected President. In any event, the jurisdiction to embark on an evidence-based assessment 12 See Transcript of Proceedings, David v Chief Elections Officer (Guyana CA, Civil Appeal No 41 of 2020, Gregory and Persaud JJA and Reynolds J, 22 June 2020). 13 David v Chief Elections Officer (Guyana CA, 22 June 2020) [34] (Gregory JA). 14 David v Chief Elections Officer (Guyana CA, 22 June 2020) [37] (Gregory JA); David v Chief Elections Officer (Guyana CA, 22 June 2020) [102] (Reynolds J).