9/16/2020 NATIONAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION V AMOS SIEH SIEBO-MOTION TO DISMISS-FINAL JUDGMENT – movant/appellee, and which it seeks to impress upon us that the respondent/appellant had only two (2) days to perfect his appeal to this Court from, the decision of the NEC’s Board of Commissioners, the above quoted provision of the Regulations, gives the respondent/appellant three (3) days to have perfected his appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of the NEC’s Board of Commissioners. The provision clearly and unambiguously sets out that: “An aspirant whose application has been rejected may appeal the NEC’s decision to the Supreme Court within three (3) days of the NEC’s determination.” But there is also another provision of the self-same ‘Compilation of Regulation’ which is titled “Regulations on Complaints and Appeals” that similarly lays out the procedures on “Candidate Nomination Challenges”. This other provision puts the time for appealing from the NEC’s decision on rejection of a candidate’s application for nomination to the Supreme Court at 48 hours from the date of the decision. Here is how the provision reads: “A candidate rejected by the NEC during the candidate nomination period may appeal the NEC’s decision to the Supreme Court within 48 hours after the NEC’s determination.” Regulations on Complaints and Appeals; Candidate Nomination Challenges, Article 5.1 We note that the latter quoted provision is clearly in conflict with the earlier quoted provision which found in the self-same “Compilation of Regulations” promulgated by the National Elections Commission. We wonder why the respondent/appellant did not pick up such a glaring conflict in the one document. A contention on the effect of conflicting standards in the regulations would have gained this Court’s attention not only because by the wording of the regulation, the respondent/appellant and all other persons similarly situated are left wondering as to whether the regulations require two or three days to appeal the NEC’s decision to the Supreme Court but also because it is a settled principle of law in this jurisdiction that where there is a conflict in the law or a document, said conflict works against the drafters [who in the instant case is the National Elections Commission] and that the innocent responding party cannot be held answerable therefor. Tex L. judiciary.gov.lr/national-elections-commission-v-amos-sieh-siebo-motion-to-dismiss-final-judgment/ 30/36