Min Raphael Trotman said that CEO’s report cannot be rescinded
Disgruntled parties must take up election petition after declaration as CCJ ruled
“TIU: CEO, once be tenders that advice and that report under Section 96 of the Representation of the People’s Act, it cannot be undone and it can’t be changed or replaced and whatever quarrel we may have or whether they’ve been an inadvertent or deliberate error, it can only be cured or remedied by an elections petition,” APNU+AFC Co-Campaign Manager, Raphael Trotman said on Saturday.
Speaking on an APNlJ+AFC programme, the Minister of Natural Resources said that, based on his legal understanding, advice given to his party in 2006 and the Caribbean Court of Justice’s (CCJ’s) recent decision, it appears that a declaration must be made and those not in favour of the results must take to the courts but only after it is made.
Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, submitted his Elections Report to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) on Saturday, showing a win for the APNU +AFC. It is the third of its kind since the conduct of the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections and is, for the first time, reflective of the declarations made in March 2 020 by the Returning Officers in the country’s JO Electoral Districts.
There is now great national debate, and amongst G ECOM Commissioners, about whether his report should have been guided by the March 2 elections results from the IO declarations or the subsequent national recount which the CCJ picked apart.
ln explaining his position on the matter, Trotman pointed to 2006 when he and now Minister of Public Infrastructure, David Patterson, visited the GECOM headquarters to meet with the then Chairman and CEO, when he said they were told that once the CEO’s report has been issued, no changes could be made.
“We were told that he could not go back and make any changes to it even if there were patent /laws or errors and we were then told that an elections petition had to be filed if we intended to pursue gaining the seat which had been wrongfully allocated to the PPP,” Trotman recounted.
Furthern1ore, he said that while the GECOM Chair has directed that the recount data be used and the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) has been clamouring for Lowenfield to use same, no one can dictate the actions of the CEO who has indicated that his report is in keeping with the law.
Trotman said that \\i1ile some point to Section 18 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act which stipulates that the CEO is «subject to the direction and control of the Commission”, the fact. remains that the CEO has a statutory and a constitutional duty and no Commission, Court or person can direct him to de) ever results of their choosing.
He drew for example the similarity that the Minister of Public Security cannot instruct the Commissioner of Police how to conduct his operations.
Trotman also noted that while some disgruntled with Lowenfield ‘s report have called for him to be replaced, a new CEO would not be able to certify the elections unless that person was present and working alongside the CEO during the elections and rightfully qualifies for the said position.
The Minister stated: “I hear people saying ‘fire him’ but, quite frankly, if you dismiss the CEO, we’re going to plunge ourselves into deeper trouble because no one can rightfully now assume his responsibilities to say ‘I can certify this or that result’ because no one else has the general and even specific authority and supervision of these elections 0th.er than the CEO.”
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
Trotman said that though some had hoped that CCJ’s ruling would have provided finality on Guyana’s elections leading to a swift declaration, the very opposite came out of the Court’s assumption of jurisdiction and ruling whereby the Elections Commission is now left with many uncertainties.
“We are in uncharted waters; we are in, I would say, a Constitutional crisis. Unfortunately, the CCJ has muddied the waters rather than made it clearer for us … in a week’s time, they sought to come down with some decisions which turned out not to be helpful. They left several an1biguities,” he said.
One of which he outlines was the current uncertainty about the legal effect of Order No.60 — the legal cover used to facilitate the national recount which pointed to massive irregularities and close to 5,000 cases of voter impersonation.
The Elections Commission had relied on Article 162 of the Constitution, and Section 22 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act to bring Order No. 60 into effect, but the CCJ, in its ruling, said the allocation of seats in the National Assembly and the identification of the successful presidential candidate could only be based on the reports of the Returning Officers.
It was on that basis that the CEO submitted his latest Elections Report, no longer on the infom1ation coming out of the recount, but in accordance with the Representation of the People Act, based on the declaration made by Returning Officers in the 10 Electoral Districts in March.
However, the PPP/C argues that Order No. 60 and therefore the recount data — which shows victory for the PPP/C — was not set aside by the CCJ but was actually endorsed by the Court and should be used to make the declaration.
Still, in this case, the question would remain of whether one can only adhere to one aspect of a legally binding Order and not the Order in its entirety without amounting to a breach of the Order.
Turing back to the role of the CEO, Trotman said: “We are in the throes of a Constitutional crisis. I don’t see how any section of the Representation of the People Act, or any powers that the Commission may have, could overturn or undo that report once it is issued and, given the reasoning of the CCJ, it would appear that any aggrieved party or parties would have to await a declaration and then approach the High Court for a petition to set aside that declaration.”
He also put forward the option that the Commission is in its right to state that it cannot make a declaration based on the circumstances. However, like the rest of Guyana, Trotman said that one can only wait to see what unfolds at the Commission level.
A GUYANA PROBLEM
At the end of the day, the Minister said that the issues at hand are Guyana’s problems and the country and its leaders ,viii have to find a way forward. He said that those who do not !Understand the history of Guyana’s elections and politics may not be able to provide proper guidance on the situation.
“There seems to be more outside and external interest in our elections than there is in Guyana More foreign states seem to be more interested in a particular outcome than even the people of Gu ana to some extent, to the point where they are prepared to breach all international protocol. Sand conventions and say and do things which are unheard of and which could not even have been risked or entertained in their own states,” he said.
With the tensions high, he said that he is nonetheless pleased that President David Granger, Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo and members of civil society have encouraged patience amongst the people so that chaos does not ensue.
However, he condemned reported acts of persons previously seeking to intimidate the GECOM Chair in weeks passed by throwing snakes into her yard and flying drones over her home; and the threats coming to the CEO for seeking to do his constitutional duty.
“We pray that the peace prevails, we pray that good sense prevails,” Trotman said. “In the days ahead, I believe that the political leaders will be called on to find a way forward. It will not be the first time that political leaders have had to have dialogue. We’re locked in an epic battle where neither side intends to budge and, unfortunately, elections in Guyana have been where one has to win and one has to lose. But I do believe that the time has come for us to seriously look at finding a way where both sides could win and the country can win”.
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_13_2020