…Chief Justice to rule today on court’s jurisdiction to hear ongoing election matters

…GECOM’s lawyer says challenge to declaration of results by opposition must come by way of elections petition

By Svetlana Marshall

Chief Justice, Roxane George-Wiltshire, will, today, rule whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear an application intended to block the declaration of the results for the 2020 General and Regional Elections until the Region Four votes are completely verified.
Justice George-Wiltshire made the announcement on Saturday after hearing preliminary arguments in the case which was brought by People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), through a private citizen Reeaz Holladar. Earlier the party had secured an injunction to block the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) from declaring the results for last Monday’s General and Regional Elections on the grounds that the votes declared for Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica) were not completely verified. The case was brought against the Region Four Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo; the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield; and the Guyana Elections Commission.

Holladar, who is also being represented by Anil Nandlall, is seeking a number of remedies including an order from the High Court that the declaration of the Region Four votes by the Returning Officer is in breach of the provisions of the Representation of the People’s Act and as such it is unconstitutional; and a declaration that GECOM cannot legally or constitutionally declare the results of the General and Regional Elections unless and until the Returning Officer or the Deputy Returning Officer for Region Four, complies with the process set out in Section 84 of the Representation of the People’s Act.

On Saturday, after a more than two-hour-long adjournment to allow for the filing of additional affidavits, the court case recommenced at 13:30hrs before Justice George-Wiltshire, under heightened security, with ranks of the Guyana Police Force stationed at strategic locations around the High Court in downtown Georgetown.

Engaging in a legal battle of words, Senior Counsel Neil Boston – the attorney representing GECOM, the Chief Elections Officer and the Region Four Returning Officer – argued that the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear the application which seeks to block the declaration of the results for the General and Regional Elections. Such a declaration has not been made but Trinidad’s Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, who is among attorneys representing Holladar, argued that the court has jurisdiction to hear the case, emphasising that it is a matter of procedure and not the result. “That question can only be cited by an election petition, that is an election court and Justice Navindra Singh’s Court nor Madame Chief Justice’s Court is not an election court so they do not have jurisdiction to deal with it,” Boston submitted to the High Court.

In defending GECOM’s position, Boston argued that the application should have been brought before the High Court by way of an Election Petition within 28 days of the declaration of the overall results of the General and Regional Elections in keeping with Article 163 (1) of Constitution and the National Assembly Validity Elections Act.

According to Article 163 (1) of the Constitution, the High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine any question regarding the qualification of any person to be elected as a member of the National Assembly. Article 163 (1) (b) also grants the High Court exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether “(i) either generally or in any particular place, an election has been lawfully conducted or the result thereof has been or may have been, affected by any unlawful act or omission.”

The Senior Counsel submitted to Justice George-Wiltshire that the issues brought before the High Court fall “squarely” within Article 163 (1)(B)(i). An Election Petition, he stated, is mandated by Section 3 of the National Assembly Validity Elections Act.

But while the National Assembly Validity Elections Act provides for an Election Petition to be brought before the High Court within 28 days of the official declaration of the General and Regional Elections results, Boston drew to the court’s attention the fact that the Elections Commission to date has not declared the results for the General and Regional Elections.
He argued that Holladar by questioning the process through which the results for Region 4 were arrived made the case, elections in nature, and as such should have awaited the official declaration before moving to the High Court. The Senior Counsel told the court that the Constitution and Elections Laws only envisage a one-stage process and not a two-stage process.

Holladar has argued that the process of verifying the Statements of Poll in the presence of party agents and observers were never completed, and as such the purported declaration of the votes by the Returning Officer is unlawful and of no effect. “[He is alleging] that the result for Georgetown which has been declared is affected by an unlawful act or omission and that falls within the teeth of the 163 (1) (B),” the Senior Counsel submitted to the Court.

In support of his arguments, the Senior Counsel referenced the case of N. P Punaswammy vs the Returning Officer in the state of Madras in 1952 and V. Sreekumar vs The Chief Electoral Officer on 24 March 2009 in Kerala, with similar grounds. Among the local cases referred to was Gladys Petrie and others vs the Attorney General and others in 1968 and most recently the case involving recalled Member of Parliament Charrandass Persaud whose seat in the National Assembly became the subject of a court matter on the grounds that he had breached the Constitution having sat in the Parliament as a Dual Citizen.
Elections petition

Meanwhile, Mendes, in his oral submissions, told the Court that the questions raised in Holladar’s application do not fall within Article 163 (1) of Constitution nor the National Assembly Validity Elections Act, and as such an election petition is not required.

“We respectfully submit that the questions raised do not fall within that class; the questions raised do not challenge the results of the elections because the results of the elections are not yet known; the questions raised do not challenge the election itself. What these proceedings seek to do is to progress the elections, to facilitate the elections in accordance with the law, irrespective of what the result might be,” Mendes submitted to the High Court.

He said his client’s application surrounds the electoral procedure to be followed and not the result of the General and Regional Elections. In making his case, the Trinidadian Senior Counsel referenced to Representation of the People Act, Section 83, sub section (9) (a). According to Section 83(1), “The presiding officer, as soon as practicable after the closing of the poll, in the presence of such of the persons entitled under section 79 (1) (b) to be present. Further to that, subsection 9, states “After the completion of the counting, the presiding officer shall complete the ballot paper account and tendered ballot paper account in Form 23, the Statement of Poll in Form 23 A, and prepare and certify a sufficient number of copies of the same for distribution as follows (a) to the returning officer; (b) to the assistant presiding officer; (c) to such of the duly appointed candidates or the polling  agents as are present; (d) to the Chief Election Officer.”

Added to that, he said there is evidence that the process employed by the Returning Officer in tabulating 458 Statements of Poll (a percentage of the more than 800 SOPs) was flawed. “The process was not followed and it appears that the declaration was made under 84 (1) despite the fact that process was not followed. And what the applicant is asking this court to do; is direct that that process be followed. It is as simple as that,” Mendes said. The preliminary arguments in the case were heard in the presence of a number of International Observers including those from the Commonwealth, Carter Center, Organisation of American States and European Union Electoral Observation Missions.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-8-2020

THE United Republican Party (URP) Leader and Presidential Candidate Dr. Vishnu Bandhu is calling on the two major political parties to put away the decades-long ‘winner-takes-all’ political tradition and establish a National-Front Government whereby shared governance will be the order of the day.

Dr. Bandhu in a letter to the Editor in Chief of the Guyana Chronicle called upon the leaders of the two major political parties to put an end to the racial segregation fuelled by politics.
“Racial strife has destroyed our country as it continues to destroy the world. How long must we continue to allow our citizens to become caught in the tangle of racial segregation and political greed?” he questioned.

Reflecting on the two major parties’ commentaries about the results coming out of the recount, Dr. Bandhu stated that it is obvious that Justice (Retired) Claudette Singh, Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) will have an angry commission to preside over when both sides meet to discuss the various narratives that have been reported on in the media up to this stage of the recount.

Bandhu added that the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) has been raising several anomalies in the various workstations and has charged that the March 2 elections were not credible.

He noted that the party has been raising concerns about deceased and migrated persons voting and missing statutory documents in ballot boxes in the March 2 general and regional elections, in areas known to traditionally support the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).

While on the other hand, the PPP/C has been maintaining that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has “no jurisdiction” to investigate the allegations of “electoral fraud” being levelled by the APNU+AFC Coalition; that such should be done via an election petition after the results of the election have been declared.

Let it be a victory for all citizens
Dr. Bandhu further stated that both the APNU+AFC and PPP/C leaders have agreed that they will accept the results of the recount.
“Both of the major parties also said at the end of balloting on March 2, that the elections were free, credible and transparent. Now, as anomalies are unearthed on both sides, it is being said that the elections are null and void,” he wrote.

He added that the presidential candidates of the two major parties, Brigadier (Retired) David Granger and Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali should surprise Guyana and its people by appearing together at a press conference, with hands joined in victory, not for any political party, but to show a victory for all citizens of Guyana.

He further wrote that all the other parties that contested the March 2 elections should join them in an act of solidarity for a safe and modern Guyana.
“All political leaders must exercise political maturity, and stop thinking about self and political alliance, and begin to think about the country.”

Bandhu further noted that unless an alliance that bridges the racial divide in Guyana is fostered, Guyanese will continue to feel marginalised, “If one of the smaller parties that contested the General and Regional Elections got only a single vote, it means that they have a constituent they are representing; therefore we must not allow sections of the electorate who have voted to go unrepresented because the party they voted for did not get a seat in parliament.”

Additionally, he noted that the country’s constitution must also be reformed to ensure that every constituent is catered for and must also focus on the elements of segregation and division that have destroyed the fabric of Guyana’s culture. “Hate crimes must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and persons guilty of such crimes must be subjected to jail time,” he added.

Bandhu also called on the ABCE countries to stop speaking about sanctions against Guyana and begin to speak of shared governance and a national-front alliance situation. “Let us all begin a movement that will heal our country of the vicious act of self-aggrandisement,” he said.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_08_2020

…urges PPP Presidential Candidate Irfaan Ali

Presidential Candidate of the PPP/C Dr Irfaan Ali has said that the results of the recount confirmed what his party has been saying that the won the elections.

Following the completion of the last ballot box on Sunday at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC), supporters of the party began declaring victory. The Guyana Elections Commission has warned against such action.
Ali, told the media that the recount is showing exactly what his party would have said with their Statements Of Polls, that PPP/C won these elections by well over 15,000 votes.
He went on to say that “this is a moment for us to come together as a country, come together as a people and embrace the future, learn from the challenges in building a more stronger and prosperous Guyana in which all of us can live and fulfill our dreams and aspirations.”

Ali said that the country has been in a challenging state since December 2018 when the no-confidence motion was passed in parliament. “We have been in a difficult position in this country since the no-confidence motion. Life was never the same, business was never the same. It is time Guyana gets that space to bloom and to move forward. Our country deserves this and the citizens of our country deserves this,” he said.

According to him, his party is prepared to deal with any eventualities.
General Secretary of the PPP/C, Bharrat Jagdeo, also addressed the public through the media, pointing out that the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) has shifted its position in declaring win from the elections results, to a position of discrediting the results of the recount. He said that the recount numbers show that Clairmont Mingo’s results were inflated for the APNU+AFC and deflated for the PPP/C in many areas. And it is on these grounds the party has claimed victory ahead of GECOM’s declaration.

Glaring evidence

But while the PPP/C has downplayed the irregularities as mere claims, Commissioner Vincent Alexander has said that there is glaring evidence that the electoral process was manipulated – a position also held by President David Granger. There are over 6,000 irregularities, which have resulted in more than 90,000 votes being affected, he said.
While the PPP/C has declared itself the winner, the declaration of the results is not automatic as suggested by the opposition.

Now that the count is completed, the next phase will be initiated, which entails the preparation of a report on the process by the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield, which will later be reviewed by the commission. The Elections Commission will then decide whether or not the data from the recount should be used for the declaration of the results of the 2020 General and Regional Elections.

Commissioner Alexander had said that even though the alleged fraudulent ballots were counted in the recount, the Chairman of GECOM, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh had noted that the investigations will still continue to ascertain what decision to take at the end of the entire process. At present, there is no certainty of what the end decision will be, and the public is advised to await the declaration of GECOM.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_08_2020

…Coalition says several other steps required before declaration

THE recount process has uncovered evidence of massive electoral fraud affecting over 84,000 votes, the ruling APNU+AFC coalition said on Sunday as GECOM wrapped the month-long recounting of votes for the March 2, 2020 elections.

“Tabulation is not Validation: once only valid votes are counted the coalition will win these elections,” APNU General-Secretary Joseph Harmon said. In a statement, the coalition added that “what was uncovered throughout the recount process and magnified on Thursday June 4th, Friday June 5th, Saturday June 6th and Sunday June 7th, nakedly exposed the smoking gun of the obscene People’s Progressive Party illegality on the East Coast of Demerara which is ‘the nest’ in perpetuating [sic] fraud on the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections.”

According to the coalition, numerous sealed ballots boxes, exclusively in PPP stronghold areas, when opened, were missing all relevant documents legally required to legitimise the process. “The pattern is clear – where the APNU+AFC won, the documents are in the boxes, but where the PPP “won,” the documents are missing.”

The party said the votes which cannot be validated on the lower East Coast of Demerara alone, amount to tens of thousands. These votes are bogus, fraudulent and cannot withstand scrutiny. There is no option but for GECOM to reject all ballots, in all 10 districts, that cannot be validated.

“What was uncovered in the ballot boxes from polling places on the lower East Coast Demerara was obscene and provides unequivocal and incontrovertible evidence that massive and systematic electoral fraud was unleashed on March 2nd. Not only were the March 2nd elections tainted, but we now know, with certainty, that electoral fraud was committed in an effort to subvert the will of the Guyanese people. The perpetrators have committed a wilful, egregious and heinous act against democratic values of Guyana,” the coalition said.

The coalition said that as a result of these revelations and exposures, there can only be one legitimate conclusion following the recount process. “We now await to hear from the right-thinking people of Guyana and GECOM in that regard. GECOM is put on notice that it cannot use illegal and fraudulent votes to produce a valid and acceptable result. Fraud cannot produce credibility.”

Four-stage process
President David Granger on Saturday, while reminding the nation that the national recount was widely supported by the government and opposition, said an acceptable outcome is expected based on four sequential stages. It was outlined that the ‘recount’ of ballots – the first stage – follows the decision of the elections commission, on April 3, 2020, that it would recount all ballots cast in the elections. The national recount commenced on May 6, 2020.

The second stage of the process, the President posited, will see the compilation of a report of the recount by the chief elections officer, and it is within that report that the irregularities, in addition to the tabulated votes, will be detailed.

“The chief elections officer (CEO), in the circumstances, is obliged to present a matrix of the poll results of each electoral district together with a summary of the ‘Observation Reports’ of each electoral district to the election commission,” President Granger detailed. Given the exceptional interest of the CARICOM Heads of Government and the leading role of the CARICOM scrutinising team, it is the President’s hope that their ‘report’ will be sent to the elections commission and receive the fullest consideration.

The ‘review’ of the report by the elections commissioners – the third stage of the process – will follow,” the President further detailed, while noting that the elections commissioners will be expected to take into consideration all the evidence provided in the CEO’s ‘report’, both from the tabulation and observation, in their deliberations.

It is expected, also, that the elections commission will examine the CARICOM report at this stage. The ‘result’ of the General and Regional Elections – the fourth and final stage of the process – will be declared by the Chairman of the Elections Commission after she has studied the report of the chief elections officer and the Observation Reports, the President summarised. Iterating a long-held position, President Granger said he will accept the results of the elections as declared by GECOM.

“…I shall accept the declaration of the results by the elections commission, which will allow for a democratically elected government to be sworn in to office. I am committed to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. I respect the integrity and autonomous nature of the elections commission. I will abide by the declarations of the elections commission as I have abided by the rulings of the court,” the Head of State told the nation.

With the recount near completion, the President called on Guyanese to await the completion of the four stages – the current recount, the reports of the chief elections officer and the CARICOM observers, the review by the elections commission and the declaration of the final results by chairperson of the commission. It was President Granger who in 2019 met with the Chair of GECOM, the elections commissioners and the leader of the opposition, and offered a commitment to ensure that the General and Regional Elections would be free and credible.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_08_2020

Dear Editor,
THE recent statement on the recount process by the Organisation of American States (OAS) that, “ A declaration based on these results would lead to the installation of a legitimate government” is that organization’s opinion. However, it is another clear demonstration that the OAS is not an impartial observer of the Guyana election process but is instead an instrument for regime change as was seen in Bolivia. It is Guyanese and their institutions’ opinion which matters, not that of foreign interests.

While foreign observers have the right to express their opinion on the election they are observing, it is expected that it is done in a responsible and non-partisan manner; the OAS’s premature declaration that the process is credible to decide a winner in the elections even before the process is completed. And the Guyana Election Commission (GECOM) not determining how it would deal with numerous cases and evidence of irregularities and anomalies which have been revealed from the examination of the ballot boxes. This is no small matter in the context of Guyana’s electoral history and is critical for the acceptance of the results of the recount.

In the current situation where the country’s unity and cohesion are threatened, the OAS is recklessly invoking the “unhelpful” position that no election is perfect, therefore, the results should be accepted. No foreign interest, political or otherwise, can decide what level of imperfections Guyanese are willing to embrace as acceptable in our elections. This is the solid right of Guyanese and their institutions. It is we who have to live with the decisions and their consequences. It is therefore our right to set election standards that are higher than the so-call “international norm”. This can be a profound contribution to our political culture and governance. In so performing, Guyana can contribute to global enhancement of elections practice and accountability. As an independent nation, we have the right aspiring to higher electoral standards than that of many Western countries including the United States of America.

The children of enslavement, indenture along with our indigenous people, all victims of European exploitation and oppression, must rise to the historical challenges posed by our National and Regional Elections. We have the opportunity to demonstrate to the world that we have a sense of justice and nationhood that is bigger than “winners and losers” when that outcome is based on questionable and tainted elections. I am on record as early as the 1997 elections in contending that our elections are a racial/ethnic census, and that elections have the potential of aggravating political and economic competition to the point of destroying the nation.

In this context, Guyana does not have the luxury to continue playing with fraudulent elections as we have been doing for a considerable time. I have made the point that periodic elections in Guyana, if they are not to be counterproductive, as have been for most of our election history, have to be based on the highest standards. This is something the OAS is not interested in as witnessed by their track record.

We Guyanese must remind ourselves that post-1992 elections ushered in new forms of refined methods of elections rigging by the PPP/C, aimed at ensuring a comfortable parliamentary majority. In these new forms of rigging, the PPP/C had the advantage in terms of numbers that allow them to cover their crimes; since it allows them to win the plurality. The rigging intends to achieve a parliamentary majority large enough to pass a national budget without depending on the support of other parties.

This form of election fraud falls within the so-call international acceptable standards that the OAS has invoked that once the fraud is not enough to change the logic of the vote, the government emergent from those elections is considered legitimate. Our experience on this matter reveals to us the dangers in acceptance of governments coming out of election fraud before 2015. It took 23 years of struggle to defeat the PPP/C. Over those two-plus decades, rigged election occurred unabated with the blessings of international observers and the Western diplomatic community.

I end by reiterating that the decision of whether the March 2, 2020 elections and the recount process is credible enough to form the basis for a “legitimate government” is a matter for the Guyanese people and their institutions — and not foreign interests like the OAS.

Regards
Tacuma Ogunseye

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_08_2020

THE last day of the national recount of the votes cast at the General and Regional Elections went no different from the days before, as more irregularities and grounds for considering the elections fraudulent, were detected.

At the end of Sunday, several instances were disclosed to this publication. At Enmore/ Hope Primary School, ballot box number 4793, the number of electors on the Official List of Electors (OLE) was 331 and the amount of electors ticked on the marked list as voted was 258.

However, the total ballots issued was 330, which leaves 72 ordinary ballots unaccounted for, since there were no unused ballots in the envelope.
Box number 4792 of the same polling place had a copy of an OLE that belonged to another box. The box had six copies of OLEs of which one belonged to another station.

In addition, ballot box 4799, from Enmore Community Centre, had 18 oaths of identity. However, none was recorded. And there was an instance in the very box, where the ID number did not match the name on the oath of identity.

It was also disclosed that there were missing statutory documents from ballot box 4833 at Clonbroek Primary School. That box had no counterfoils and no poll book.
These irregularities took the numbers on the lower East Coast up, from 29 ballot boxes to 41, of which over 10,000 votes are compromised.

Writing on behalf of APNU+AFC, Elections Agents Joseph Harmon and Minister Amna Ally had said the lack of the critical documents will effectively affect the recount process. “There is no account and/ or explanation for the missing statutorily required documents. This means that there is no way for the Commission to verify that the ballots were issued to this polling station. Consequently the validity of any count from this box is in question,” Ally told the Elections Commission. She added: “Additionally, it cannot be substantiated that electors who cast ballot in these cases met the statutory requirements. In this circumstance the aforementioned Ballot Boxes should be set aside.”

The coalition, in the letter, also noted the limited ability of its agents to examine each and every ballot, and as such, they could not detect with any certainty the issues at hand.
“We continue to call for investigations and action in these matters and since the complaint of fraud is so clear, it is suggested that the Guyana Police Force can help GECOM to bring a speedy resolution to the issue,” APNU+AFC urged.

Weighing in on the issue on Friday, Elections Commissioner Vincent Alexander told reporters that the discoveries were strange, while pointing to the fact that the boxes originated from People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) strongholds.

However, on Sunday, the Commission took the decision that regardless of missing documents, the ballots will be tabulated on the grounds that persons cannot be disenfranchised. The question of validity still lingers however, and the next phases of the recount will ultimately determine what final decisions will be made on these objections and observations recorded on the SORs.

In a matter of days the country will know the final outcome when GECOM makes the declaration of the winner of the 2020 elections.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_08_2020

…important task of validating votes, study of observation report to begin

THE Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), on Sunday completed the national recount of ballots cast at the 2020 General and Regional Elections with the tabulation process of said ballots likely to be completed today.

Sunday saw the completion of recount of the remaining 74 ballot boxes adding to a total of 2, 339. Meanwhile, the tabulation process was pegged on Sunday at 2,325 for the general elections and 2,244 for regional.

When the tabulation is completed, the results will not be declared just yet. Based on the Order which legally triggered the recount, Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield must next submit a report of the recount to the commission. In accordance with the amended order, this report must be submitted no later than June 13.

The report will include a summary of the observation reports for each district. It is in these observation reports that the APNU+AFC, primarily, has highlighted over 6,000 cases which it believes are tied to electoral fraud.

These cases include: missing Official Lists of Electors, ballots for one region cast in another; ballots cast for the dead and persons who have migrated; persons voting without proper identification; persons voting outside of their districts without employment documents; large numbers of improperly stamped ballots at locations where disciplined services members voted; missing poll books and documents from one polling station being found in the ballot boxes of another.

It is also expected that the three-member CARICOM scrutinising team will present a report pertaining to their observations, recommendations and conclusions to the commission.

When the said reports are received by the commission, it will then deliberate on them and how they will be treated before a decision is made on whether the said data should be used or before a final declaration is made.

The amended Order states: “The commission shall, after deliberating on the report at Paragraph 12, determine whether it should request the chief election officer to use the data compiled in accordance with Paragraph 12 as the basis for the submission of a report under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act, Cap 1:03, provided that the commission shall, no later than three (3) days after receiving the report, make the declaration of the results of the final credible count of the elections held on the 2nd day of March 2020.”

There is already division amongst government-nominated and opposition-nominated commissioners with regard to what should be done about the claimed and observed irregularities. The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) has argued that every election will produce margins of error and the ones discovered by the coalition are minimal. However, the APNU+AFC contends that there are “clearly linked” patterns amongst the irregularities which invalidated votes cast for the party. It is also steadfast in the position that fraudulent votes cannot be counted and that GECOM has the responsibility to deliver credible results to the electorate.

The last recital of the Order provides that the conduct of the recount process is for the purpose of “…the reconciliation of the ballots issued with the ballots cast, destroyed, spoiled, stamped, and as deemed necessary, their counterfoils/ stubs; authenticity of the ballots and the number of voters listed and crossed out as having voted; the number of votes cast without ID cards; the number of proxies issued and the number utilised; statistical anomalies; occurrences recorded in the Poll Book”.

Even so, citizens will only know of the commission’s decisions on how it will treat with the matters highlighted in the summary of the observation reports to be presented within the CEO’s report following the deliberations.

Once the report is deliberated upon, it will determine whether the CEO should use the data to compile a final report for the declaration of the results by GECOM Chairperson, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh.

The national recount, which commenced on May 6, 2020, is being executed under Article 162 of the Constitution, and Section 22 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act under the supervision of the elections commission, based on an agreement reached between President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo following the intervention of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

President David Granger, while maintaining that he will accept the results of the General and Regional Elections as declared by the commission, has stated that, from all indication, the electoral process was manipulated as he pointed to the countless irregularities unearthed.

“Everyone is aware of numerous reports of irregularities including unstamped ballots, deceased and migrant voters and missing poll books. Those irregularities appear to have been committed intentionally, not accidentally, and demonstrate a pattern of manipulation of the electoral process,” he said in an address to the nation on Saturday.

Even so, the Head of State has also iterated: “…I shall accept the declaration of the results by the Elections Commission, which will allow for a democratically elected government to be sworn-in to office. I am committed to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. I respect the integrity and autonomous nature of the Elections Commission. I will abide by the declarations of the Elections Commission as I have abided by the rulings of the Court.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_08_2020

Dear Editor,

BHARRAT JAGDEO, the PPP, and others at home and from abroad have been using every available medium to communicate their preferred outcome of our March 2 elections. But none of them, I think, would have advanced the same arguments if adherence to electoral democracy were their paramount interest.

Their mantra, before the recount agreement was reached, was that the tabulation has to be credible. It has since changed to a “credible recount”. To these folks, including sections of the media, it is of no importance or relevance whatsoever that mounting evidence shows that the numbers being tabulated are coming from votes of questionable validity due to egregious and irrefutable violations of the voting process at polling stations. So, they have by implication declared: “Let the statutorily-imposed voting process at polling stations be damned! No consideration is to be given to how and why votes got into the ballot boxes. Only a credible recount and a credible tabulation process matter. Democracy in the voting process needs nothing else!”

But do these self-proclaimed advocates of democracy really want us to believe that democracy in the voting process is now reduced to merely a credible recount and tabulation as opposed to the most important first step of confirming that the process that produced the votes was strictly adhered to, thereby ensuring that only valid votes are submitted to be tabulated? Have these folks invented a new form of democracy called Tabulation and Recount Democracy minus the verification of the validity of the votes cast?

The violations of our electoral process found in many ballot boxes are as clear and as irrefutable as the confirmation of vote differences between the SORs for some boxes and the first tabulations for the very boxes. So why should GECOM accept the SORs but ignore or reject the process violations being unearthed, many of which affect votes included on SORs? Isn’t it obvious that a process is in place to ensure that only valid votes are cast? And isn’t it also obvious that a violation of the process leads to invalid votes? And that no credible tabulation of invalid votes should be accepted as a credible recount? No less a person than the PPP’s Anil Nandlall said that acts of fraud nullifies the electoral process!

GECOM has full constitutional and legal authority to determine the validity of the votes it uses in tabulations to declare the winner of an election. So, it must faithfully exercise that authority without regard to the self-serving or for-hire comments of local or foreign persons. Yes, GECOM must neither condone nor reward the polling-station violations. For though courts can later examine GECOM’s decision, they cannot stop GECOM from determining the validity of votes. So, Anil Nandlall’s threat of legal action to force GECOM to just count the votes is as empty as the space into which his threat was uttered.

But our courts may very well be needed in an unprecedented way if GECOM decided it could not determine a winner because too many votes were compromised by the aforementioned irrefutable and egregious violations of the voting process at many polling stations. I do not see this as being awful, because our courts are always asked to deal with unprecedented issues and make precedent–setting decisions in our precedential judicial system.

When APNU+AFC and their supporters rightly started questioning the credibility of the elections and pointed out that observers can all witness tabulations but couldn’t visit all polling stations, they were asked if they had not said that the elections were credible. This seemingly reasonable but transparently self-serving attempt to hold persons to their prima facie statement that the elections were free, fair, and credible is as ludicrous as trying to convict or exonerate someone of a crime on the basis of a prosecutor’s or a defense attorney’s opening statements, even though evidence presented during the trial contradicted whatever was asserted in those opening statements. Evidence found during the recount has contradicted the prima facie statement that the election was credible. So APNU+AFC has every right to amend that statement. There is no need to emulate others in being head-in-the-sand obdurate.

Whatever ultimately results from the ongoing recount, Guyanese will have been finally presented with incontrovertible proof that the PPP barefacedly rigs elections. Though it is often remarked that ‘the proof is in the pudding,’ the proof of the PPP’s rigging is in and outside the box. No wonder the PPP was more interested in retabulation than it was in recount. It is not true that recounting Region Four was the PPP’s first option. The PPP reluctantly agreed to the recount of all regions only after it had vehemently but unsuccessfully argued for a retabulation only of Region Four. Now we know why. Our constitution must be upheld. And Anil Nandlall’s solution for electoral fraud should be implemented.

Regards,
Lionel Lowe

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_08_2020

…CEO to continue probe into missing documents

THE A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) has expressed disappointment over a decision of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to tabulate votes from 29 ballot boxes that had none of the statutorily required documents.

The documents were discovered missing on June 4 and 5 after the matter was brought to the attention of the Elections Commission by the APNU+AFC by way of letter. The APNU+AFC has since objected to the Statements of Recount (SORs) generated for those ballot boxes being included in the tabulation exercise.

Following a meeting of the Commission on Sunday, which was expected to give verdict on the 29 boxes, Commissioner Vincent Alexander said that a majority decision was made that the ballots should be tabulated. Meanwhile, the Commission will continue to investigate the matter.

Alexander said that the decision was made on the held position that the vote of no elector should be disenfranchised. However, his position is that the said situation is much more complex. He stated that the decision to tabulate the SORs contradicts other decisions taken by the Commission, whereby votes were disenfranchised not by the doing of an elector but that of GECOM’s Polling Day staff.

AGREE IN PRINCIPLE

“In principle, I do agree, and I think the Commission agrees that no voter should be disenfranchised. That decision was made in principle, but when one takes the position that no voter should be disenfranchised and applies it to the fact that in many instances and on to now, in the circumstance of 81 ballots in Sophia which were clearly… a part of a whole document — the second half of which has two stamps and one half not having a stamp simply because the ballots were folded horizontally when they were being stamped rather than vertically — and we can’t make a decision on that, and people are trying not to address the matter at all,” the Commissioner reasoned.
He added: “We seem not to be a Commission that is pursuing fairness and justice in relation to the votes of the voters.”

The missing documents from the 29 boxes include counterfoils (used and unused ballots), Poll Books, and marked Official Lists of Electors (OLE) among other statutory documents. The boxes came from the Ogle Community Centre, Lusignan, Montrose Primary School, LBI Primary School, Life Spring Ministries, and Chateau Margot Nursery and Primary Schools among other areas known to be People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) strongholds.

With the key documents missing, the GECOM Staff, Party agents and all other observers involved are unable to verify whether the votes were legitimately cast.

In a statement on Sunday, the APNU+AFC expressed its dissatisfaction that the 29 ballot boxes would be tabulated. It described the boxes as “clearly fraudulent”, and stated that GECOM needs to publicly state the rationale behind the decision.
“APNU+AFC wishes to make it clear that we do not accept a tabulated vote as a credible vote, since in the bundle of tabulated votes rests several votes which are fraudulent. Decisions on matters raised by APNU+AFC are awaited,” the letter expressed.

Alexander had suggested to the Commission that some mechanism should be sought, and later put forward to the media the possibility of holding by-elections, which are elections held in the single constituency to address the current concerns.

NOT ONE-SIDED
On the other hand, Commissioner Sase Gunraj later told the media that GECOM Chair, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh’s vote was not in favour of any one side, but in favour of enfranchisement of electors who legally participated in the process.

“I am happy that good sense prevailed in the meeting, and that a decision was arrived at on the side of enfranchisement as opposed to disenfranchisement…,” he said.

Questioned on Alexander’s proposal to set aside the boxes, Gunraj contended that GECOM does not have the responsibility to set aside ballots cast, as this falls within the remit of the High Court.

“GECOM, in all of its powers, is still limited by the law, and the law states the specific instances by which a ballot can be invalidated and we have been giving due credence to those tenets of the law,” he stated.

Gunraj disagreed with the sentiments that the Commission has displayed inconsistencies in the fairness of its decision-making in the referenced Sophia case, as the same treatment that was given to those ballots was applied to a Pindora ballot box in the PPP/C stronghold area.

DOCUMENTS STILL MISSING

GECOM had initially decided that the 29 ballot boxes would be set aside pending an investigation but nothing has come out of the said investigation due to a failure to reach the requisite Deputy Returning Officers (DROs).

The DROs responsible for those areas were invited to a meeting by the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield on June 6, 2020, and while they committed to being present, they were a no show. Poll bags were also checked but the documents were not found.

Questioned whether the Commission would consider reverting to the Statements of Poll (SOPs), Alexander said that GECOM is not dealing with the past documents during the recount.

Added to that, he said that the said SOPs remain flawed because there has been sufficient cases highlighted during the process to show that persons have illegally voted on behalf of the dead or migrated.

While some persons have taken to the media and social media to claim that they have been wrongly highlighted as migrated or deceased, Alexander said that it is for these individuals to make their contention known to the Commission.
He said that the Commission has turned to the legal authorities — General Registrar’s Office (GRO) and Immigration Department — to get information it can rely on and it cannot rely on possibly politically-motivated claims in the media or social media rumours.

Meanwhile, Gunraj said that he hopes that the tabulation process will continue today [June 8] and within June 8-9, the tabulated results will be known. Then, he said that his party will be eagerly awaiting the report of the CEO followed by the expected consideration amongst the Commission and the subsequent final declaration.

He reminded that the Gazetted Order only caters for three to elapse after the provision of the CEO’s report before the final declaration should be made.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_08_2020

THE Private Sector Commission (PSC) and the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), on Tuesday, called on political parties and their supporters to respect the rule of law and the basic fundamentals of the democratic process.

In a statement, on Tuesday, the PSC said it has taken note of a countrywide protest which was conducted on Monday by supporters of the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC). Protesters basically urged non-interference in Guyana’s electoral process.

The case is centered around an application filed by the PPP/C seeking to have the CCJ set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision that Guyana’s President must be elected based on “valid votes” in accordance with Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution. The Appellate Court’s decision was made under Article 177 (4), which states that the Court’s decision is final.

The PSC said it was disappointed with APNU+AFC’s decision to stage a protest at a time when the regional court was still deliberating on the matter. “We believe it [is] unfortunate that any one of the political parties currently represented in the case before the CCJ should attempt to prejudice the ruling of our Apex Court in the matter before it,” the Commission said.

While recognising the rights and freedom of peaceful and orderly protest, the PSC warned that street protest, during this current political climate, could result in counter protest. It opined that such could result in disorderly and possibly violent behaviour.

For that reason, it joined calls with the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) for Guyanese to be responsible in their actions as the nation awaits the final declaration of the results of the General and Regional Elections held on March 2, 2020. “The PSC also calls upon the Commissioner of Police to ensure that the rule of law is respected and firmly applied and enforced without favour against any attempt to promote, incite, or participate in public disorder or violence of any kind,” it said. The PPP/C, in a similar statement on Tuesday, said: “In today’s free and democratic society, where the world is seen as one global village, it is a matter of significant public importance if democracy is under threat, moreover under siege, in any particular territory. Its condemnation is viewed almost as a duty by important public personalities, diplomatic missions, and rights’ organisations. Consistent with their approach, from the moment the case was filed at the CCJ, APNU+AFC’s abuse has been focused on the Court,” the PPP/C said.

However, on the issue of the CCJ, records show that the APNU+AFC has been calling for the Constitution to be respected on the basis that it, in unambiguous language, states that a decision made by the Court of Appeal under Article 177 (4) cannot be appealed at any other court, including the CCJ. The PPP/C expressed the view that once a country like Guyana signs on to international arrangements and treaties, such is not a limitation of sovereignty but an exercise of it. “Guyana is a member of the Commonwealth, the United Nations, the Organisation of American States and CARICOM, and through its obligations under various international treaties executed with these organisations, Guyana enjoined to practise and embrace democratic processes, including free and fair elections. Similarly, in 2004, Guyana signed on to a regional agreement legally establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice as its final appellate court, by an Act tabled by the PPP/C, supported by the PNC, which ultimately was unanimously passed,” it said.

It concluded that the CCJ is no longer an organisation extrinsic to the State of Guyana but it is intrinsic and indeed the apex tier of our judicial hierarchical structure. But while the Caribbean Court of Justice Act paved the way for the CCJ to be Guyana’s apex court, the court’s jurisdiction is not without limitation. Notably, Section 4(3) of the CCJ Act, bars the CCJ from having jurisdiction to hear any matter in relation to any decision of the Court of Appeal, which, at the time the CCJ Act came into force, was declared to be final.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-8-2020