Dear editor,
I DO wonder if I can have the attention of your readership. Sorry that should be full, undivided attention. You see, I have been grappling with this very exhaustingly perplexing situation which demanded a tad more cerebral grey matter to resolve. To optimally communicate my conundrum, I endeavoured on a period of meditative reflection which brought me to irreversible conclusion of the tried and tested, analogy. It is this path that I will now venture to provide clarity to this troubling predicament of mine.
The year is 2075, Bharrat Jagdeo at the ripe old age of 110yrs, still occupies the apparently permanent position of opposition leader. He invited me, as a retired doctor, over to his office, strange as it may sound, to discuss matters of health. Without hesitation, I accepted the unquestionably accepted invitation. On the day of the meeting I was smartly dressed in a navy blue suit which was complemented by black shoes. I was politely greeted by Bharrat Jagdeo’s secretary Irfaan Ali, who graciously ushered me into the spacious office.
Discussion progressed very well, but then Bharrat Jagdeo requested an urgent intermission to address matters of the alimentary canal. Just as he returned, I had just picked up his Rolex watch that was on his marble table. Without any questioning, I was arrested and placed in prison. On my much anticipated court day, I chose not to employ the service of the esteemed lawyer, Mr. Nigel Hughes, since in my estimation it was not a matter of legal mathematics. On arrival in court I thought the Lady Judge was very
amiable, polite and professional. I was worried for her health, moreso hyperthermia, as a consequence of wearing a thick woollen coat in a very tropical country. The Lady Judge eloquently read my charge, simple larceny. I politely requested of the esteemed judge to make a point, I consider pressing and relevant, to which she so kindly acceded.
I first politely reminded the Lady judge the legal definition of larceny. I highlighted that larceny is a crime against possession. This in itself is self-explanatory. Furthermore, I stated that it has two elements which must be met before I can be found guilty. The first step is the actual taking of the property, even if momentarily (actus reus) and secondly, the culpable intent to deprive another of his/her property (mens rea). In simple terms, I must have picked up the watch with the intent of depriving Bharrat Jagdeo of it. I further argued that yes, I did have the watch momentarily in my hand but it was never my intent to deny Bharrat Jagdeo of said watch. At this point the Lady Judge queried why else would I have the watch in my hand? With a fixed gaze on the complainant Bharrat Jagdeo, I responded that I had an urgent appointment, I forgot my watch at home and I had merely picked up his watch to check the time.
Of course I was set free, but I trust you see where Jagdeo erred. First, he assumed that me picking up his watch meant I was stealing it. Secondly, he rushed to a premature conclusion and never gave it time to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt that I was in the process of stealing his watch. My point is, applying my non-legal mind, someone cannot be guilty of a criminal matter unless the processes of the act in question were completed. To interrupt the processes, before they were completed because you felt it
would have been perpetrated is to place yourself in a very difficult position of trying to establish intent without any “evidence” in action to support it.
Guyana recently had general and regional elections for which processes were going swimmingly well until Region Four. At some point in the Region Four tabulation, Bharrat Jagdeo brought a Statement of Poll (SoP) which indicated that the PPP gained 10,000 more votes than in 2015. It also indicated that the PPP won Sophia. If they won Sophia then I must be the white Michael Jackson. Anyway, the SoP that was in the possession of Bharrat Jagdeo was questioned, since Region Four is an APNU+AFC stronghold and what he was suggesting is tantamount to the APNU+AFC stating that they won Babu Jaan.
The SoP was ultimately rejected and the processes were continued to the stage of verification. The PPP was not happy with what they saw, invaded GECOM and verbally threatened the staff before they forcefully kicked down Chairperson Justice Singh’s office door. The returning officer proceeded to publicly announce the Region Four tally which further angere the PPP. The final process was never completed because of the criminal actions of the PPP. They then took the matter to court, even before the processes were completed with a declaration. Their argument is electoral fraud.
Let’s examine this closer. The PPP clearly is not happy with the results because of the number of votes that was tabulated for them. As a result, they argued that it is electoral fraud. Let’s assume that they are right that they actually got more votes than was allocated to them. So now we have to determine if the intention of that reduced-vote
allocation was to defraud them of an election win. Can we really jump to that conclusion when the process has not been completed? What if that reduced-vote allocation was a simple typographical error. Would you take someone to court for a typographical error? That would be a waste of the court’s time. In my non-legal opinion, unless the results are declared then it is impossible to established intent. I do know the PPP’s sins of 1997 are haunting them.
As a kid I would hear grown folks saying that thief man don’t like to see his fellow thief with bag. Clearly, rightfully or wrongfully, they would assume that the thief with the bag has stolen. PPP, I know you have not forgotten what you did to us in 1997. Not because we are in a similar position means we will revisit it on you. When the results are declared, you must accept it gracefully. Destroying the country would not benefit any of us.
Regards
Dr. Mark Devonish
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-9-2020