[13] Ms David also specifically indicated in her Application that she was placing before the Court of Appeal for its determination, the following issues, namely: (a) Whether GECOM’s recount process has affected or altered the meaning of the phrase ‘if more votes are cast’ in Article 177 (2) (b) ‘to the extent that it now means more valid and credible votes cast as contemplated by Order No. 60 of 2020’. (b) Whether the CEO is to advise in respect of the Presidential Candidate who has been named on such a list which has received more votes than any other list. (c) Whether the CEO can advise GECOM in respect of the Presidential Candidate if GECOM ‘abdicates its responsibility to determine the credibility of the Elections’. [14] Ms David’s Application proceeded on the premises that, among other matters, a) Order 60 had the effect of ushering into the carefully constructed constitutional scheme for elections in Guyana ‘a new and completely different legal regime’9; b) GECOM had ‘abdicate[d] its responsibility to determine [the] credibility’ of the elections, a responsibility it had undertaken by the terms of Order 6010 and c) the Chairperson’s 16 June directive to the CEO (who by Section 18 of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act, 2000 is mandated to be subject to the direction and control of the Commission) required the CEO to commit an illegality11. The Decision of the Court of Appeal [15] The Court of Appeal heard Ms David’s Application on 20 June 2020. That court must be commended for delivering its decision orally on 22 June 2020. In the face of the objections raised by Messrs Ali and Jagdeo, the Court of Appeal, by a Eslyn David, ‘Written Submissions on Behalf of the Applicant’, Submission in Eslyn David v Chief Elections Officer, Civil Appeal No 41 of 2020, 19 June 2020 [19] (‘Written Submissions to the Court of Appeal’). 10 ibid [27], [39] – [40]. 11 Written Submissions to the Court of Appeal (n 9) [45]. 9