-forces GECOM to abort meeting to address pending
-issues, among them the contentious Elections Report
By Svetlana Marshall
EVEN as the Guyana Elections Com mission (GECOM) was preparing to meet in anticipation of another Elections Report from Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, it was served with legal documents filed in the High Court, challenging its failure to declare the results of the General and Regional Elections in accordance with the July 11 advice of the CEO.
The meeting, though reportedly convened at GECOM’s Headquarters at around 14 :00hrs on Tuesday, was eventually aborted, and as such the anticipated fourth Elections Report was not submitted by the Chief Elections Officer.
Outside of GECOM’s Headquarters, Government-nominated Elections Commissioner Vincent Alexander told reporters that it has been the practice of GECOM that once legal proceedings are initiated in the Court, it would await the Court’s judgement before proceeding with the electoral process.
“The usual practice has always been when a matter has been filed … that our business is held in abeyance until the determination of that matter. ln fact, even when the matter is terminated in Court, she (Justice Singh) always insists that we await the written judgement to proceed,” Elections Commissioner Charles Corbin added.
It was on the basis of this “common practice” of GECOM’s Chair, both Alexander and Corbin said that their Government-nominated colleague Desmond Trotman made a case for the Elections Commission to await the judgement of the High Court.
According to both gentlemen, the Elections Commission, chaired by Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, did not treat with any of the substantive issues on the agenda that day, including the Chief Elections Officer’s pending report.
Lowenfield, on July 11 had submitted an Elections Report reflective of the Declarations made by the Returning Officers in the IO Electoral Districts in accordance with Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act and Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution, but the GECOM Chair, on Monday July 13 ordered him to produce one based on the Certificates of Recount generated during the National Recount no later than 14:00hrs on Tuesday July 14.
Opposition-nominated Elections Commissioner Sase Gunraj told reporters that while Court proceedings have been initiated, there was no order granted by the High Court blocking the Elections Commission from proceeding with the electoral process.
Gunraj said that once the meeting was convened, the Opposition-nominated Commissioners, he included, enquired about the CEO’s Elections Report.
“This enquiry which was made by members of my side of the Commission was met by at least one member of the Commission on the other side saying to the CEO that be doesn’t have to answer to us,” Gun raj said, adding: “well, if be doesn’t have to answer to the Commission, I don’t know who be bas to answer to.” According to him, both the Government -nominated Commissioners and the Chief Elections Officer subsequently left the meeting, forcing it to be discontinued.
LEGAL ACTlON
In the Fixed-Date Application (FDA) filed in the High Court, the applicate Misenga .Jones, is seeking a total of 21 Declarations and six Orders from the Court, with the primary objective of having a Presidential Candidate declared president in accordance with the July 11 Elections Report of the Chief Elections Officer, which was compiled based on the Declarations made by the Returning Officers in the JO Electoral Districts, as [Provided for in the Representation of the People Act.
Further, Jones is asking the Court to rule that the National Recount created a new electoral regime, in contravention of the Constitution and the Electoral Laws, particularly the Representation of the People Act. The National Recount was conducted in May-June, based on Order 60, which was brought into effect by Article 162 of the Constitution, and Section 22 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act.
In an Affidavit in Support of the Application, Ganes Mahipaul told the High Court that during the recount exercise, which spanned from May 6 to June 7, 2020, GECOM arrogated unto itself the· function and authority to decide on tbt validity of votes cast at the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections_ Mahipaul was an accredited counting agent for the A Partnership for National Unit+ Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) during the National Recount, which was conducted at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre.
II was explained that the Elections Commission developed a string of criteria and standards for the determination of the validity of votes cast. Such actions, Mahipaul contended, are inconsistent with the requirements of the Representation of the People Act.
‘Votes which were determined to be valid pursuant to the process set out m the Representation of the People Act were determined by the Elections Commission to be invalid, on the criteria and standards determined by the Elections Commission during the Recount, and, similarly, votes which were determined to be invalid pursuant to the process set out in the Representation of the People Act were determined by the Elections Commission to be valid during the recount process, “the APNU+AFC counting agent told the High Court.
Further, he noted that the criteria used to determine the validity of a vote vaned throughout the recount exercise, as he pointed to the “Basket of Issues” that was developed by the Commission. Citing as an example, Mahipaul pointed out that at polling stations, Pres1dmg Officers invalidated votes for want of an official mark (a six-digit stamp); ballots with names and or initials: ballot papers marked by Electors with more than one marking; and tom ballot papers, however, during the recount exercise, some of those votes were validated by the Commission.
‘The Elections Commission, during the Recount,. Had initially invalidated votes where the Presiding Officers had written missing numbers of the Official Mark: but later treated votes as valid, but nevertheless did not revisit those votes which had earlier been treated as valid,” Mahipaul said, adding:
“Ballots which were considered to be smudged and in valid by the Presiding Officers were treated by Recount Workstation Supervisors and District Coordinators as valid, based on their understanding of voter-intent being clear. After May 27, 2020, the Elections Commission took a decision to channel smudged ballots through the hierarchy for decision. This resulted in a variance, because on some occasions, the members of the Elections Comm1ss 10n and the Chairman determined such votes to be valid, and on other occasions the District Coordinator made such decisions and determined such votes to be invalid.”
Further. Mahipaul told the High Court that the Representation of the People Act never authorised Workstation Supervisors, District Coordinators, or Elections Commissioners to operate and function as Elections Officers. Important to note, he said was the fact that Presiding Officers and Returning Officers did not participate m the recount exercise.
‘The statutory documents required by the Representation of the People Act, that 1s, Form 24, the Declaration Forms to be signed by the Retuning Officers, are the documents which must be submitted to the Chief Elections Officer and these are the documents which must be used to declare the results of the Elections under Section% of the Representation of the People Act.” he explained.
Mahipaul, through bis Affidavit, told tbt Court that there was a clear breach of tbt Representation of tbt People Act.
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_15_2020