interpretation of the Constitution. This is made even clearer by Paragraph 6 which provides that the validity of the election of such a person can only be challenged in keeping with Paragraph 4. [50] The case of Re Eusi Kwayana’s Application54 was heard and decided by the Guyana Court of Appeal. A majority in that case declined jurisdiction to treat with an application questioning the validity of the election of the President in circumstances where it was being alleged that there was a defect in the Oath of office that was taken by the President. The case neatly illustrates two features of Article 177(4). Firstly, courts will interpret the Article in a strict, narrow manner. Secondly, the requirement for an election of a President would not cover even a situation where someone had assumed office as President but had not been elected, under the transitional and unique provisions at the time. [51] For all the above reasons, it is our judgment that the provisions of Article 177(4) were not triggered by Ms David’s Application to the Court of Appeal. That court’s decision was not and could not have been made under that Article. The finality clause therefore is not applicable. 55 [52] The Court also notes that an Order issued by GECOM in any particular context can never determine how the Constitution is to be interpreted. It is a matter of elementary constitutional law that if ordinary legislation is in tension with the Constitution, then the courts must give precedence to the words of the Constitution and not the other way around. With respect, the notion that Order 60 could either impact interpretation of the Constitution or create a new election regime at variance with the plain words of the Constitution is constitutionally unacceptable. Summary and Orders of the Court [53] It follows from all that is stated above that, under the laws of Guyana, this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Application by Messrs Ali and Jagdeo to 54 (1980) 29 WIR 130. See Cetelem SA v Roust Holdings Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 618 [22] - [23]; CGU International Insurance plc v AstraZeneca Insurance Co Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1340, [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 501; Aden Refinery Co Ltd v Ugland Management Co Ltd [1987] QB 650. 55