In a decisive ruling with significant implications for Jamaica’s electoral integrity, the Supreme Court has dismissed a judicial review application filed by Paul Buchanan, a People’s National Party (PNP) parliamentary aspirant. The case centered on Buchanan’s challenge of the September 3, 2025 General Election results in St Andrew West Central, where he lost to incumbent Prime Minister Andrew Holness by approximately 2,000 votes.
Presiding Justice Sonya Wint-Blair delivered the landmark judgment, emphasizing that Buchanan’s application was fundamentally undermined by procedural delays that violated Jamaica’s strict electoral timelines. The court determined that the 13-day gap between the election and Buchanan’s formal complaint to the Constituted Authority—the body responsible for investigating electoral irregularities—constituted a critical failure to adhere to statutory requirements.
Buchanan had alleged substantial electoral malpractices including double voting, voter intimidation, and compromised ballot integrity—particularly in PNP strongholds. He further claimed that election officials surreptitiously altered agreed-upon transportation routes for ballot boxes, directing them to ‘volatile and hostile’ areas. Additionally, he cited organized disruptions by opposing supporters who allegedly blared music near polling stations to intimidate voters.
The Constituted Authority had previously rejected Buchanan’s request on September 30, 2025, determining that the alleged irregularities failed to meet the threshold established under Section 37(e) of the Election Petitions Act. Buchanan subsequently sought judicial review of this decision on October 8, 2025.
Justice Wint-Blair’s ruling highlighted several crucial aspects of Jamaican electoral law: The Authority must apply to the Election Court within 28 days of polling, while candidates have merely 21 days after results declaration to file petitions. The judge noted that Buchanan’s legal team provided no justification for their delayed action, rendering their application ‘statute-barred’ and effectively futile.
The court also addressed broader constitutional principles, noting that electoral matters require finality to protect the legitimacy and certainty of democratic outcomes. While acknowledging the seriousness of electoral fraud allegations, Justice Wint-Blair emphasized that procedural compliance cannot be compromised even when substantive claims are raised.
Legal representatives for both sides presented extensive arguments. Buchanan’s attorney Hugh Wildman contended that the Authority applied incorrect standards of proof and that delay shouldn’t preclude judicial review. However, Deputy Solicitor General Lisa White successfully argued that Buchanan had ‘imported a procedure not contemplated by the Act’ and that the judicial review sought would constitute merely ‘an academic exercise’ given the expired statutory deadlines.