ABSTRACT
In findings directly relevant to a consideration of the fraudulent referendum of 1979, Justice Singh had held in her judgment that it was for the court to consider the evidence in relation to the unlawful acts and omissions and to say whether the evidence established that the elections were flawed and whether those flaws were sufficient to declare the elections void (judgment, p 4). The question to be considered had been well put by Bollers CJ in Petrie v Attorney General (1968) GLR 504, p 519: ‘Whether there is some general illegality either affecting the whole election or the election held in some particular place, or in the absence of a general illegality, whether there has been some specific illegality, being either an act or an omission which affects the results of an election’ (judgment, p 6).
