Dear Editor,

A MARCH 24 publication from Bloomberg has revealed that the PPP/C is proverbially cutting their noses to spite their faces when it comes to the party’s determination in sabotaging the nation under the cause of “democracy.”

According to the Bloomberg publication (authored by Crowley and Millard), Bharrat Jagdeo and his PPP/C cohorts plan to “work with the international community and push for sanctions.”

While this is alarming, one doesn’t have to fear the idle threats that are being hurled like sewage from the PPP/C. They are acting in a comedy of errors, on an impulse of clownish behaviour which poses serious risks to every Guyanese.

Pushing for international sanctions will do more harm to Guyanese as a whole. This is because while the PPP/C’s politicians sleep comfortably at their oceanside residences, sanctions will make the average person suffer and starve. Look at the crises in 1990s Haiti, and recently, post-Chavez Venezuela, as two examples of how sanctions do more harm than good to innocent lives.

It’s as if the PPP/C’s supporters are being led through a road of deception by the PPP/C, acting as the Pied Piper of future misery. Furthermore, it is hypocrisy, given that it’s already known in the streets that a majority of PPP/C politicians are clannish and anti-immigration at heart. The Guyana Times is guilty of such hostile sentiments by being insular and racist towards fellow members of the CARICOM community seeking refuge.

However, Bharrat Jagdeo and the PPP/C are conducting an international campaign to plead foreign governments into sanctioning Guyana for biased reasons. Why beg American, Canadian, British and  EU politicians to sanction Guyana? Isn’t that hypocrisy? The PPP/C is just a tale of many riddles! The PPP/C is acting like the fox who called the grapes sour, spiting their noses to cut their faces, and leading their supporters astray like the Pied Piper.

Regards,
Riaz Hamid

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_26_2020

Dear Editor

AN INTERNATIONAL Electoral Observer Mission (IEOM) in any country has its role to play and should not be hindered. And those who came to observe the 2020 General and Regional Elections were accredited and had every right to do so. They viewed the Guyanese people exercising their constitutional right to vote and at the end of the elections, the IEOMs stated that the elections were free and fair.

Nonetheless, in an examination of the of the OAS report forwarded so far on the 2020 General and Regional Elections, there have been some obvious flaws in the way some of them handled their responsibilities. And this has been clearly revealed by the manner in which the report was presented.

The OAS Observation Mission has a detailed manual which is widely publicised for all to see. In that manual it states among other things that the OAS/EOMs are guided by some ‘fundamental principles of international electoral observation’. These include –

“Objectivity and neutrality: The work of an OAS/EOM depends on its impartiality, neutrality, and independence. These basic characteristics of OAS/EOMs are reflected, among other things, in the actions of the international observers as well as in the statements and declarations of the OAS/EOM.”

The manual went on to state that there must be ‘respect for the host country’s domestic laws.’ “Doing the work of observation implies complete respect of the constitution and laws of the country where the electoral process is taking place. The privileges and immunities granted to international observers, such as immunity against arrests, searches and seizures, and/or legal proceedings, are intended to ensure that the international observers can act independently in carrying out their specific functions.”

The OAS manual further states, “It is not up to international observers to approve, disapprove, or correct the decisions of the electoral authority; replace or question political party poll-watchers; or increase the human or material resources of any participant in the process, including the competent national authority, which is the only arbiter of the process.”

According to the OAS manual, these are some of the foundational doctrines on which the institution stands, as it relates to international observing of elections in countries.

Guyana’s experience
But how has Guyana’s experience been with the OAS and some of the international observers? Specific objectives of the OAS/EOMs has stated in no uncertain terms that observers should, “…ensure the impartiality, transparency, and reliability of the electoral process… help create an atmosphere of public trust and encourage citizen participation,” among others.

Instead of observing these ‘fundamental principles, there were statements and actions that can easily give the impression that the author(s) were representing the cause of a particular political group. The report said, for example:

“The Mission has noted that images of the Statements of Poll published by the PPP/Civic on its website, which it claims were given to its polling agents after the ballots were counted at each polling station on the night of the elections, produce a result that is vastly different from that being declared by the Returning Officer and would have a decisive effect on the outcome of the national election.” The report went further:

“To date, neither the Chief Elections Officer nor APNU has challenged the authenticity of the Statements of Poll published by the PPP/Civic by producing the copies in their possession. The implications are deeply troubling and make it all the more necessary for the Returning Officer to display the Statements of Poll on which he is relying.” How very sad!

Putting it simply – The OAS and any other observer mission are here not to set strife, but in the words of their manual, to be objective, impartial, neutral and independent. In essence, there would have been here to make peace as much as possible. But even in the midst of the elections matter still in the courts, as well as attracting CARICOM and other interested parties, the OAS crafted an obviously lopsided report.

If the entire election was done in a free and fair manner, how come Region Four, the one that is supposed to make the difference for the APNU+AFC coalition was not? How come everything seems to have gone wrong with Region Four – from top to bottom?

It can therefore be conceived that the OAS report is an obvious effort to divide this country, even though this same report has stated that they were, “…pleased to have declared that the March 2 poll was, in almost all respects, well executed.” Why didn’t the organisation seek to have dialogue with the APNU+AFC coalition if they had discerned a problem somewhere along the line? The manual of the OAS and other international observers suggest different manoeuvring.

One of the major principles written in the OAS manual is that the international observers should, “Help create an atmosphere of public trust and encourage citizen participation.” With the help of some of these observers Guyana has so far experienced the opposite.

Regards
Earl Hamilton

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_26_2020

– says GECOM’s SOPs are final

THE Kingdom Liberal Movement (KLM), a political party which did not make the cut to contest the 2020 General and Regional Elections, has called on all political parties and citizens to respect the role of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).

The party stated, on Wednesday, that the Statements of Poll (SOPs) presented by the Commission should be trusted as accurate and the Elections Commission should not put aside its figures to please any political party.

“We understand that it has been common practice by GECOM’s personnel to produce spreadsheets from SOPs and then announce from same. These have however proved contentious this time around as Opposition elements were bent on dictating GECOM’s mode of operation, calling for only SOPs and even getting the court to make orders such as SOPs on large screens – orders not provided for in law and never heard of in any previous election,” KLM said in a release.

“If GECOM’s figures cannot be used, there is no other source recognised under the constitution, thus giving GECOM ultimate power. GECOM cannot and should not put aside its figures to use those of political parties, observer teams and/or other organisations. It must be accepted that regardless of which political party/observer or mission groups/organisation would present figures, it is only that of GECOM that is relevant and where these are not accepted, there is a system for redress following the entire process; that is following the period after voting and declaration.”

The KLM which views itself as a religious, apostolic and political body stated that it had been observing, with “profound disappointment”, the behaviour of some before and following the breakdown in tabulation by the Commission.

It pointed out “Opposition elements” as the main instigators of this negative behaviour and condemned the attack launched on GECOM’s staff at GECOM’s Command Center earlier in the month stating:

“This local body has taken note of online videos where party representatives are boasting of barging into GECOM offices, breaking down doors and ‘intimidating a frail and scared’ GECOM chairman. Video also surfaced of party representatives threatening female police ranks with their jobs as they (the ranks) refused to allow them to the chairperson’s office. These behaviours are unaccepted. It led to chaos, encouraged and supported distrust in GECOM.”

In the midst of this, KLM said that it supports the “wise, lawful decision” of President David Granger to steer clear of any direct, indirect or perceived interference, intimidation or directing of the Commission.

It reminded that GECOM should always be insulated from executive interference in the performance of its functions by virtue of the Constitution. The political body stated: “Even in the face of many local and overseas pressures to intervene, the president has maintained his proper place and position in allowing GECOM, the constitutionally mandated agency which possesses the sole authority, according to the laws, to handle matters relating to elections in Guyana. What the evidence shows is screaming acts of intimidation, bullyism and threats against GECOM’s staff by Opposition elements and unfortunately, even observer missions, some of whose representatives demanded GECOM’s numbers; something not even the most powerful or ordinary Guyanese can do.”

Even so, KLM called on GECOM to execute its lawful duty to facilitate a speedy resolution, completion and final declaration of the results, and, on the President and government to continue to uphold proper and legitimate posture. Meanwhile, the party urged citizens to remain calm as the country awaits the ruling of the High Court and subsequent declaration by GECOM.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_26_2020

Dear Editor,

I MUST thank you for publishing my letter on the implications of the foreign diplomats’ active involvement in the elections aftermath debacle at GECOM.
Please, once again, permit me to throw in my penny’s worth to the issue of our elections credibility.

For a process to be deemed credible, it has to pass certain litmus tests from beginning to end. So, here is my suggestion for a litmus test: All Party agents and several of GECOM’s staff at a given Polling Place would have been armed with a copy of the OLE for that particular Polling Place. Am I not correct? As an elector casts his/her ballot, his/her name is ticked off by all persons so armed. Am I not correct?

Well, let us go back to those lists to ascertain a few things. We have to assume that once a name is ticked off, that that elector did cast his/her ballot on Elections Day.

1: We must then ascertain the whereabouts of each elector on Elections Day. That is to say, if Mary Paulin voted at Shulinab, was she in Shulinab on March 2, 2020? Obviously, if she was in Brazil, she could not cast her vote.

2: Similarly, if Joseph Marco was in hospital on March 2, 2020, and he voted, then a valid ‘proxy’ had to have been produced to enable someone of his choice to vote for him. If a ballot was cast in his name, then the ‘proxy’ has to be produced.

3: Again, if Juliet Casimero voted, but it was discovered, during the litmus test, that she is dead, then we must ascertain the date of her death. Obviously, if she died before March 2, 2020, then it would be impossible for her to vote. During this exercise, we must have the database of Immigration and GRO at our disposal to cross- check every name, inclusive of the Database of the Guyana Prison Service and any other database that will show where our citizens were at any given point in time.

If, as I suspect, we have discovered any person voting who was not supposed to vote, then the entire process would have lacked credibility; not just the count. If, as I suspect we will find in abundance, certain names who voted on March 2, 2020, who were nowhere near Guyana, then we would know that a certain Pompous Political Party certainly engaged in Electoral Fraud. Once this is discovered, then all their other claims will be void.

The results of this exercise will then be shared with the International Observers. I know the exercise will take time, at least three weeks, depending on how much resources we throw into it; but we have already waited three weeks for a result that the other Parties want to go a certain way. So, another three weeks should not be a problem, as long as we get to the bottom of this charade. At least, we will know for sure who engaged in fraud. This is so necessary, since there were reports of Party operatives in possession of large quantities of Identification Cards. My suspicion is that that was not an isolated incident. Let the verification of persons’ whereabouts begin. As I am on, I wonder why has there, up to now, been no condemnation of the post-elections violence by the International Community, the PSC, the GCCI, and other otherwise vocal Civil Society. I am still wondering why no one has come out in indignation at the obvious arson committed at Bush Lot, WCB. Can you imagine the noise that would have reverberated around the world, were these acts committed by APNU+AFC supporters?
Just wondering.

Regards,

Carl Parker

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana-chronicle-epaper_03_24_2020_

RECENT reports of acts of violence against known and perceived supporters of the APNU+AFC coalition are most disheartening.

It all began on Friday, March 6 when supporters of the PPP, apparently at the urgings of that party’s leadership, launched a series of violent attacks on innocent citizens, including schoolchildren and law enforcement officers.

These perpetrators used the occasion, by way of protests against what they were led to believe were attempts to disenfranchise them, to target their fellow citizens. The rage was expressed in broad daylight, and the ethno-racial intent was hardly disguised.
This publication had editorialised on those events, and in the process, we bemoaned the fact that foreign and some local observers had failed to grasp the gravity of those developments. Hence, there was not enough denunciation from those quarters. We were very sure then that that failure would only embolden the so-called protesters. That the PPP did not forcefully denounce the March 6 violence was a telling signal that it had embraced violence as both a tactic as well as a strategy to further its narrow partisan agenda. Violence of any nature is unbecoming; but that which emanates from a place of racial animosity is especially dangerous.

Guyana is no stranger to civil unrest. The scars of the ethnic disturbances of the 1960s are still very fresh in the psyche of our country; we have not yet fully recovered from that brutal period of our national journey. Since then, we have, from time to time, flirted with ethno-political violence, but have managed to hold our country together. But we know only too well that there are forces which are bent on invoking that which they view as legitimate forms of political expression. We, of course, strenuously reject that world view, and call on all Guyanese to do likewise.

If we cannot compete for political office without resort to violence, then we are unfit to be part of an enlightened world. It is not always prudent to name culprits in a tense situation. But we are forced to identify the PPP as a guilty force in this instance; its rhetoric long before the election, and especially since March 2, has become an open licence for the violence we have witnessed these past few weeks. That a political party vying for control of our government could feel comfortable spewing such hateful rhetoric speaks to a dreadful side of our national being that must be pushed back.

We, therefore, lay the responsibility for the recent acts of terror in Region 5 squarely at the feet of that party; the instance of arson on the property of a known supporter of the PNC cannot be read as anything but that. The PPP has a history of “disciplining” Indo-Guyanese who deviate from the majority’s political thinking and action. Those who reside in areas of predominantly PPP supporters are especially vulnerable. These citizens are labeled betrayers whose actions fly in the face of religious-cultural mores, hence the resort to extreme forms of violence, which serve as both penalty and notice to others that the breaking of political ranks would not be tolerated.

This extra-judicial action is nothing short of mob-rule, which has no place in a civilised society. We again call on the authorities to be vigilant against such actions. In this regard, we stand with President Granger in his denunciation of the violence in Region 5, and his call on the police to ensure the safety of citizens. This publication continues to respect the right to peaceful protest as a legitimate expression of political grievance, but the protests we have seen since March 2 do not fall into that category. President Granger’s words are most pertinent: “I urge the law enforcement agencies to act swiftly to ensure the safety of citizens, and to bring perpetrators to justice. The Guyana Police Force must ensure that Law and Order prevail, in the interest of the protection of citizens and the State.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana-chronicle-epaper_03_24_2020_

– Former Commissioner, Seelall Persaud chastised for unfounded, bias remarks

Former Commissioner of Police, Seelall Persaud has come under fire by the Guyana Police Force (GPF) for several accusations leveled to the Force regarding its actions during the breakdown in the final tabulation of ballots cast in the 2020 General and Regional Elections.
On Monday, the GPF sent on a lengthy release reprimanding the Former Commissioner for his position on the matter which they noted reveal a clear bias although non-partisan was claimed.

Persaud had written an open letter to the GPF on March 18, 2020 urging the police to take opposite actions to what they took during the chaos which unfolded at the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) command center regarding the tabulation of the Region Four Statements of Poll (SOPs).

Leaders of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) and other small opposing party – mostly men — had invaded the center with the intention to bulldoze their way into the office of GECOM Chair, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh.

The police were the only persons standing between the irate men and the office of the chair. They were also present when loud arguments and confrontations took place earlier days at the Center and when its doors were shut by order of the Commission and those refusing to leave were escorted out.

In his assessment, Persaud said that “hardship and suffering” would ensue due to the tabulation challenges and blamed the same on the “anti- democratic action of a few in our society”.

In his open letter he urged the Police Force not to act as they did in they did at the Center but to protect citizens from a “tyrannical regime”.

“It is crucial that you do not act as you did at the Region 4 RO’s Office and the Arthur Chung Convention Center when you evicted people who had a legal right to be there and who were advancing the protection of Construction Rights of the Guyanese People,” Persaud said.

“On the other hand, in a tyrannical regime, the Police are employed against ordinary and law abiding people who are delivered into the hands of injustice and impunity. In the latter case, the Police loses its professionalism, independence and Control and the people that suffers includes their relatives, friends and themselves. Is that what we want?” GPF IS APOLITICAL
In a release on Monday, the GPF stated that it is concerned about the remarks of Persaud which suggest that the Force engaged in the practice of unprofessional and partisan acts.
It pointed out that the intention of Former Police Commissioner was apparently to negatively influence a particular section of the society towards the GPF in general; to sully the image of its senior administration and perhaps to sow discord within the Force and society.

“The Administration of the Force has utmost respect for freedom of expression as enshrined in the Constitution of Guyana. However, any misrepresentation of fact(s) needs to be strenuously addressed and in this regard necessitates perspicuity,” the release stated.
“It should be further noted that the GPF is apolitical and not officious. In that regard ranks were reminded to keep their personal political preferences to themselves, off and away from all police locations, and absent in the execution of their duties.”

The GPF also stated that likewise to Persaud’s position that he stayed away from political activism and expressions during his tenure, so does the current Administration of the GPF.
On different occasions, the GPF Senior Administration has met with leaders of the PPP/C; diplomats, Ambassadors and High Commissioners out of America, the United Kingdom, Canada and the European Union and head representatives of the Carter Centre, Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) and Private Sector Commission.

The GPF said that the aforementioned parties can attest that the Force GPF gave its assurance — and kept the same — that during the Election period the police would maintain its professionalism.

Persaud had also called into question to the acts of the GPF regarding their request that all persons leave the Arthur Chung Convention Center last week following a change in the planned national recount.

Deputy Chief Election Officer (DCEO), Roxanne Myers had informed those in the building that the center would be closed for the night and no recount would be taking place.
Inside the compound of the Center, things escalated when Opposition-nominated Commissioner Robeson Benn refused to leave and took up firm position by lying flat on his back on the floor of the walkway out of the building.

After speaking to Benn sternly and noticing no change, Benn claimed that the police sought to physically remove him from the compound but he held on to the rails.

In the Monday release, the GPF stated that it can rest assured that it operated within the confines of the Law provided for by Section 3(2) of the Police Act Cap. 16:01 and in keeping with the Constitution by virtue of article 197A (4) which empowers the police to maintain law and order for all.

SERVED DESPTITE CIRCUMSTANCE
The GPF said that while Persaud’s letter seems to focus on the two locations, it completely ignores all other efforts of the Force to duo its duty it the challenging of circumstances.
“It should also be noted that the post-election activities where the police exercised a high degree of restraint were not given any recognition by the former Commissioner of Police. Such partisan commentary speaks volumes. There were incidents which saw ranks being subjected to verbal abuse by some persons of civil society. Ranks were also attacked by protestors armed with firearms, cutlasses, wood, iron and other crude weapons which resulted in several police ranks being seriously injured, and hospitalised, while others were so traumatised that professional counselling had to be sought. Also school children were injured and hospitalized, public buses and private motor vehicles were damaged and public roadways were blocked with tyres, lamp poles and other materials which were set on fire,” the GPF pointed out.

The release indicated that throughout these episodes ranks of the GPF continued to exercise much restraint and, through widely aired on both social and print media, Persaud had played a blind eye to the same and chosen other justified matters to highlight which speaks volumes.

Furthermore, the GPF said that Persaud’s remarks on the consequences that are likely to manifest into “hardship and suffering” should be cause for grave national concern based on the manner he expressed the same with “certainty and conviction”.
It rebuked the Former Commissioner for his sentiments which suggested the selective deployment of Officers reminding Persaud that the deployment of Officers has always been the Commissioner’s call.

“This is a phenomenon that can be examined historically and one which has been a part of the modus operandi of successive post-independence Commissioners, without exception,” the GPF said.

“In the case of the two scenarios highlighted and compared by the author i.e. Free Regime and Tyranical Regime, it must be emphasised that Guyana is a democratic State. The GPF, which is an institution of the State, is a professional organisation and in the conduct of its mandate that professionalism is exercised daily which is in keeping with any government that is deemed to be democratic. Notwithstanding the distracting views of the author, the Administration of the Guyana Police Force remains resolutely committed to its motto of ‘Service and Protection’ for all in the maintenance of public safety and security without fear or favour.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana-chronicle-epaper_03_24_2020_

…Lowenfield tells Court, says elections report submitted

By Svetlana Marshall

CONTRARY to reports by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) and other opposing political parties, Guyana’s Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield has said that Statements of Poll were used to tabulate the votes cast in Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica) during the General and Regional Elections and not a spreadsheet.

And with the votes already declared for all 10 Electoral Districts, Lowenfield informed the High Court that his report is now with Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECO), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh. The Chief Elections Officer was at the time presenting his Affidavit in Defence in the case brought against himself, GECOM and its Chair by Ulita Grace Moore, a private citizen who wants the High Court to bar the Commission from facilitating a National Recount of all the votes cast during the March 2 Elections.

While acknowledging that the initial declaration made by Region Four’s Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo was set aside by Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire, Lowenfield told the High Court that during the final tabulation exercise, SOPs were used at all material times.

He explained that after the Chief Justice’s ruling on March 11, 2020, the Returning Officer, on the morning of March 13, recommenced the tabulation process to ascertain the votes cast for each List of Candidates. That, he said, was done in the presence of the persons who were entitled to be there, as outlined in Section 86 (1) of the Representation of the People Act. Denise Babb-Cummings, Shefern February, Carolyn Duncan, Tandieka Hytimiah and Kirk Gravesande were the Election Officers present at the time at the Office of the Returning Officer at Ashmin’s Building. “The Election Clerks, in the presence and under supervision of the Returning Officer, took turns, and called out the votes cast for each List from each Statement of Poll in the presence of persons entitled to be there,” Lowenfield explained, adding: “As the votes from each Statement of Poll for the List of Candidates cast were read, the said votes were imputted into the Commission’s computer by Kirk Gravesande.” He told the High Court, in his Affidavit in Defence, that the process continued until 10:20hrs when a Court Marshall served the Returning Officer with contempt proceedings.

According to Lowenfield, while the Returning Officer proceeded to the High Court, the Elections Officer continued the tabulation process, and at all material times used SOPs. However, at around 11:00hrs that day, the Returning Officer brought the process to a halt.
“At no time during the process of ascertaining the votes cast for each List did the Returning Officer, or the Elections Clerks, read from a spreadsheet, or called out votes from a spreadsheet purportedly extracted from the Statements of Poll. At all times, votes cast were read from the Statements of Poll,” Lowenfield submitted.

Later that day, he said, the tabulation process was then moved to GECOM’s Headquarters, where three scanners with corresponding laptops were set up to facilitate the display of the SOPs, as ordered by the Court. The Chief Justice had made it clear that the Returning Officer must produce the SOPs during the tabulation of votes for his Electoral District.
Lowenfield told the High Court that once the process recommenced, the SOPs were displayed for the party agents and observers to view, in accordance with the Representation of the People Act.

“The Statements of Poll were scanned in the presence of persons entitled to be there and displayed. All the Statements of Poll were picked up, one after the other, in the presence of the persons entitled to be there, and were scanned in their presence, and also displayed in their presence on the screen set up for that purpose… At no time did the Returning Officer and the Election Clerks read or call votes cast for the List of Candidates from a spreadsheet,” he maintained. According to him, any allegation to the contrary is false and malicious.

Nonetheless, he said that at the end of the tabulation process on the night of March 13, the Returning Officer declared the votes cast in favour of each List of Candidates, but that that, too, was met with objection by the PPP/C and a number of small opposing political parties.
In fact, he said that a total of eight (8) political parties had made requests for a recount on March 14, but that those requests were disallowed, due to their failure to comply with Section 24 (2) of the Representation of the People Act. He gave as a typical example of the non-compliance with the Act at reference the PPP/C’s appointment of four (4) agents, when Section 24 (4) of the Act provides for only ONE agent at a given time.

He submitted that while the PPP/C and other parties have alleged that the Returning Officer breached Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act, it is his belief that the Act was followed “scrupulously”.

THE RECOUNT
Lowenfield said that while President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo, on March 14, agreed to a National Recount under the supervision of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), he only knew of the agreement hours after it was reached. At the time (15:30hrs), he said, he and the Chair of GECOM were at the Diamond-Grove Magistrates’ Court.

“By this time, I had already prepared my report, manually and in electronic form, for the benefit of the first-named Respondent, pursuant to Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act, and sent same to the second-named Respondent (the GECOM Chair),” the Chief Elections Officer informed the court.

Nonetheless, Lowenfield said he was instructed to facilitate the National Recount, and, in keeping with that instruction, made every effort to facilitate the process until they arrived at a stumbling block. The CARICOM high-level team, which had arrived to supervise the process, had informed him that in an effort to give legality to their work, GECOM must first gazette the order, and it was then that legal advice was sought from the Chief Parliamentary Counsel, Charles Fung-A-Fat.

In offering his legal advice, the Chief Parliamentary Counsel informed GECOM that it was unlawful to delegate its function to the CARICOM high-level team. GECOM was subsequently served with an injunction, thereby blocking the recount from taking place. And with the legal challenges faced, the CARICOM team withdrew from the process.

Lowenfield told the Court that it is his belief that GECOM is not entitled, in its exercise of its power under Article 162 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, to direct the Returning Officer to revisit the objections which were delivered following the final declaration.

But while the Chief Elections Officer believes that GECOM cannot instruct the Returning Officer to facilitate a recount, the Chair of GECOM, in her Affidavit in Defence, told the High Court that she remains committed to a transparent process, as was indicated during her appearance before the Chief Justice on March 13. Justice Singh, who is represented by Attorney-at-Law Kim Kyte-Thomas, told the court that she had given the Chief Justice her word.

“I indicated to the Court that the tabulation process was in progress, and that should there be discrepancies in the Statements of Poll, as called by the Returning Officer and those held by political parties, then the discrepancy should be noted, and at the end of the process, if they could not be addressed, then I will endeavour to facilitate a recount, at the level of the Commission,” the GECOM Chair pointed out to the Court as she renewed her position.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana-chronicle-epaper_03_24_2020_

Dear Editor

WITH the coronavirus pandemic in full swing, many are struggling with having to stay indoors, and, clearly, a subset is not doing well in their new restrictive environs. One such character, whom I doubt is fit and proper to be characterised as such, is our local dinosaur who is way past his expiration date. Today, in anger, he penned a very perplexing missive in the local PPP media outlet, the Stabroek News. The dinosaur, now restricted to eating foliage and not his regular soup, went on a shock- and-awe literary attack on President David Granger. I saw the headline, “Mr. Granger is a hypocrite in all he does,” and immediately wondered if our wonderful First Lady, Sandra Granger, had gone on the other side, namely the PPP. For, surely, only Mrs. Granger would have knowledge of all that the President does. Then commonsense prevailed, and that thought was immediately dismissed. No one walks away from 50 years of marital bliss, an endearing slow hand, and a romantic easy touch. At this point, I immediately thought of the usual suspect who is forever peeping through the windows of the Grangers, so much so that he can confidently report what time they go to bed. But it struck me that he is, most likely, busy reprimanding Irfaan Ali for “came-ing out.”  Ultimately, I scrutinised the foot of the letter, and the author was established. It was none other than the Political Prostitute Personified (PPP), Kit Nascimento.

Imagine this dinosaur, with a vacuous credibility, characterizing our loyal President as a hypocrite. It is this unusual characterisation of our President that motivated me to immediately, out of an abundance of caution, do an Online check to ensure that the meaning of hypocrite had not changed. My research established this meaning, “someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in a way that shows these are not sincere.” Seriously, Kit! It is only prudent that I have a closer look at the dinosaur’s proposition to first establish if he has the moral authority to be casting such aspersions. Please forgive me, but I will have to do a summary because of space and time limitations.
Kit started out as a PNC loyalist and someone who swore allegiance to LFS Burnham at a time before I was conceived. He was so committed that the PPP just had to sneeze, and without waiting for instructions, he would go on a full-scale attack of why he despised them. Dr. Cheddi Jagan was not excluded, as he characterised him as a “communist hypocrite”. This relationship went on for decades, until the PNC lost the election in 1992. And in a wink, Kit unashamedly jumped ship to the PPP, and in the process changed his diet from PNC palm tree foliage to boneless soup. The whole world looked on as the Political Prostitute Personified went on a full-scale attack on the PNC, his previous loyal employers. This charade he carried on for over two decades, until the PPP lost the elections in 2015. And once again, the opportunistic dinosaur tried to jump ship, but a severely arthritic hip made that an impossible task, hence he was stuck with the PPP, who provided his daily boneless soup. Kit was optimistic that in 2020, with the conniving tricks of Mercury, he would have a change in diet to the more expensive crude oil, but, unfortunately, that was not to be. Now facing the end-game, he is hitting out, like a child who was denied a toy, at our President. From the above, it is clear that Kit lacks any credibility to be casting any aspersions, but I will proceed, even though the outcome is inevitable, out of fear of his claiming that I rigged the end result.

Let’s examine the Lady who Kit would rather not excercise her constitutional right. Lady Ulita Moore is not dissimilar to Master Cedric Richardson who was Jagdeo’s front-man for his Third Term case. If Kit’s memory serves him correctly, Jagdeo was running around Guyana, lying through his teeth that he has no further interest in public office. While saying this, he was simultaneously paying millions to have the CCJ overturn the Presidential term limits, which would have paved the way for him once again being the PPP’s Presidential Candidate. That, rightfully, failed, but he then selected two puppets as the PPP’s Presidential Candidate, so that he can be the de facto President. Kit, isn’t that hypocritical?
Then Bharrat was on record, while he was President, as saying that GECOM is an autonomous body, and only they can determine the nature of the verification process. Now, recognising that he will be opposition leader for life, he has changed his position to argue that GECOM is no longer autonomous, and our President can interfere with their work. He is also now saying that he can determine the nature of the verification, and not GECOM.

Kit, isn’t that hypocritical?
Then, while Bharrat was President, he banned all State ‘ads’ from Stabroek News, because they had caused him to place them in his black books. Now, Stabroek News unilaterally terminated their contract with this Government, then went on a bawling spree that it is a repeat of Jagdeo’s actions. Jagdeo came out with great condemnation of the Government. Kit, isn’t that hypocritical? Kit, you know that Jagdeo is the most hypocritical politician in Guyana, but you would rather give him a pass; reason being that you are the mouthpiece of the PSC, which is an arm of the PPP. Unlike Ruel Johnson, you are not so stupid as to bite the hands that feed you.  Then, we all know about the 1997 elections, and what the PPP did. In essence, they defied a court order and swore in Janet Jagan as president. Now, today, we are facing similar circumstances, and Kit and the PPP are saying to the APNU-AFC that they should not do what they the PPP did in 1997. It is clear, from our President’s actions, that he is staying on the right side of the law, something that PPP did not do in 1997. Kit, isn’t that hypocritical of PPP?

Kit, you are now having a go at Lady Ulita Moore for exercising her constitutional right. When Anil Nandlall’s driver did it a few weeks ago, on behalf of the PPP, he was considered a private citizen and not PPP. When Cedric Richardson did it on behalf of the PPP, he was considered a private citizen and not PPP. Now Lady Ulita Moore is exercising her constitutional right, the party she allegedly supports is being used to define her. She is considered APNU-AFC. Kit, get yuh notebook out and jot this down for future reference.

That is double standard, sexist, and hypocritical! So, with your double standard and hypocritical position, you have placed the blame on Mr. Granger for what a private citizen did, even though it is her constitutional right. You wish for Mr. Granger to breach the Constitution and demand that she abort her case. You wish for him to be unconstitutional.

Sounds familiar?  Mr. Granger now has to carry the blame, even though it was he who invited CARICOM, and was working overtime to have the recount. Kit, while you are at the blaming game, why not blame Mr. Granger for the Coronavirus which started in China? Why not blame him for climate change? Why not blame him for global warming? Why not blame him for the rising sea levels in Guyana?  Everyone is seeing through both the PPP and yourself. Our President is beyond reproach; you can’t find any negative labels for him, hence you manufacture one. You will fail! You have failed! You are a big hypocrite! The PSC is a pack of hypocrites. The PPP is a cohort of hypocrites. Roy Beepat is a hypocrite. Try focusing on those, and leave our President alone.

In concluding, I would say this. Kit, you have established yourself as a pen and mouth for hire, once the price is right. Based on the evidence, you are likely sexist. You are likely racist. A black woman should not enjoy the rights that the Constitution states that she should have. You are an unapologetic hypocrite! A big hypocrite; a hypocrite who says what he is paid to say, and not what he genuinely believes! I know the burden of being a hypocrite is getting too much for you. That is a problem of your own making. Don’t try transference techniques to place it on the shoulders of an innocent man; a man who is beyond reproach; a man who is loved by all; a man who is the President for all of Guyana and not the oligarchs like yourself!

Regards,
Dr. Mark Devonish

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana-chronicle-epaper_03_24_2020_

…CEO objects, arguments set for today

By Svetlana Marshall

IN another twist of events, an application was filed in the High Court for the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to produce the Statements of Polls (SOPs) for the votes cast in Region 4 (Demerara-Mahaica) during the March 2 General and Regional Elections.
The application – an Application for Discovery against GECOM – was filed by Bharrat Jagdeo, the Leader of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) List of Candidates. Today in High Court, Justice Franklin Holder will hear arguments for and against the application.
However, ahead of those oral submissions, the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, through his attorney – Senior Counsel Neil Boston, objected to the application on Monday.

Outside of the Court, Boston told journalists that an Application for Discovery could only be brought by way of an Election Petition. “The Court doesn’t have jurisdiction to deal with that issue that is for an election petition” the Senior Counsel said.

According to the Laws of Guyana, an Election Petition ought to be filed within 28 days of the declaration of the results for the General and Regional Elections by GECOM. Boston made it known that the CEO is not prepared to produce the SOPs at this stage.

“It is only the Elections Judge could ask for that. Only the Elections Judge could ask for that, there is no such thing as discovery. You can’t want to bring through the backdoor, something that is expressly shut out from coming through the front door in a process like this. That has to be done by way of an Elections Petition,” the Senior Counsel said.

Jagdeo’s Attorney, Anil Nandlall was not physically present in the Court on Monday but appeared via Skype. However, PPP/C nominated Elections Commissioner, Sase Gunraj, who was present in the Court, was outraged over the CEO’s initial objection to the Application for Discovery.

“What I have observed today is a very stringent objection by those two parties’ representatives, when I say those two parties I mean the Chief Elections Officer’s Lawyer to that application. And I want to ask the question, why? Why is there a very stringent and almost violent objection to the disclosure of those documents that are in the possession of the Chief Elections Officer,” Gunraj questioned, during his engagement with the press.
Confronted with the question of an Election Petition being required, Gunraj, though not highlighting the legal basis for such a request, argued that it is an entitlement of the people.

“Citizens who vote have a right to proper and transparent processes for the declaration of their results and, the Statements of Poll, which are the conclusive evidence of the results of those elections, of course, I believe, are an entitlement of electors who participated in the process,” he reasoned.

He added: “I disagree strongly with the contention that this is not the forum and it should be for an election petition.”

Attorney-at-Law Mayo Robertson, who is representing Ulita Moore in the case brought against GECOM, its Chair Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh and the Chief Elections Officer, said once the arguments are submitted, it would be for Justice Holder to decide.
“Essentially, they are trying to get some information that they believe is relevant to supporting their case but there are some rules that govern what is available in these kinds of cases, and the judge will decide whether they are entitled to it or not,” Robertson told journalists outside of the High Court. The legal arguments will be made today before Justice Holder.

CONSOLIDATION OF CASE
Aside from the Application for Discovery against GECOM, Justice Holder, on Monday, granted an application to consolidate the case filed by Ulita Moore with the case filed by Jagdeo and Reeaz Holladar, a private citizen.

Jagdeo and Holladar’s application is seeking to set aside the second declaration made by the Region Four Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo on Friday, March 13, 2020 while the application filed by Moore seeks to bar the GECOM from facilitating a National Recount on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and in breach of the Representation of the People Act.

The application to consolidate the two cases was filed by Jagdeo and Holladar last Friday, and when the matter came on Monday, Moore, GECOM, its Chair and CEO had no objections, and as such the application was granted.

With the cases being heard simultaneously, the Chief Elections Officer and other respondents in the case brought by Jagdeo and Holladar, have until 10:00hrs on Wednesday to file their Affidavits in Defence while Jagdeo and Holladar are required to file a reply by 12:00hrs on Wednesday.

“We then have to put our written submissions in relation to both matters by 4pm Thursday, and on Thursday, we may know, what date the Judge will deliver,” Boston told journalists.
According to him, the cases are being heard with a certain degree of alacrity. “So we are moving at a certain pace. Probably by Saturday, everything is over, if not Saturday, Sunday it is all over. So we are moving with a certain degree of alacrity,” he posited.
On Saturday March 14, President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo, following an intervention by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), had agreed that a national recount was necessary but by Tuesday, March 17, Moore secured an interim injunction blocking GECOM from facilitating the national recount of all the votes cast at the March 2 Elections.

Moore secured a total of four interim orders, which will in effect brought the electoral process to a halt until the judicial review is completed. In the FDA, Moore is seeking a total of 25 declarations from the High Court. In effect, the declarations, if granted, would set aside any decision of the Elections Commission to facilitate a recount, thereby paving the way for the Chief Elections Officer to submit his report to the Elections Commission for a final declaration of the results of the March 2 General and Regional Elections. Once this is done, GECOM will inform the Chancellor of the Judiciary and the President will be sworn in.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana-chronicle-epaper_03_24_2020_

– or is he Nascimento, the Kid?

Dear Editor,
TEMPER tantrums can be frustrating for any parent.” (kidshealth.org)
I know the adult population of Guyana must be frustrated by the tantrums thrown by someone like Kit Nascimento who is simply reacting like kids throwing a temper tantrum when they don’t get what they want. The fact that things are not going his way or according to the nefarious plans of the ‘mob’ he represents, Kit Nascimento throws this tantrum, calling Guyana’s most highly-respected and distinguished Statesman, His Excellency the President of Guyana, David Granger, a hypocrite.

‘Kidshealth.org’ encourages parents and adults to be patient in the face of kids’ tantrums, and to use them as opportunities to educate. This response to ‘Kid’ Nascimento’s tantrum is an effort to do just that.

Assuming that there is a pause between tantrums, we can now patiently and politely remind ‘Kid’ Nascimento that Guyana is a country of Laws. The Rule of Law does not work exclusively for one elite group of society, although we recognise clearly that he and his cohorts would relish that, and are working to make it so. In fact, Guyana is a democracy which is “a system of government by the whole population or ALL the eligible members of a State”. If we have not yet lost the kid’s attention, the adults around him must go on to explain that the definitions above create no scope for Mr. Granger to determine who must approach the courts, and when and who must not. Calling him a hypocrite for his observance of, and respect for, the Rule of Law does not make him one, even if you do so, kicking and screaming like a child in pampers. Got that so far big ‘Kid’ Nascimento!
Ok! Let’s proceed. When you say that ‘all Guyanese and all the democratic world has witnessed the failure of GECOM to deliver credible results’, there are a lot of reasonable people who would agree with you. Some have argued passionately, for example, that they have hard evidence of election fraud by the PPP in Region 3, and have asked for a recount, but the RO said NO!!! (His right under the law). Others said the same for Regions 2 and 6, and in those cases, the ROs again said NO!! (Their right under the law). Was ‘Kid’ Nascimento aware of those facts?

But no one has any right to call Bharrat Jagdeo or Irfaan Ali a hypocrite, because they did not fight those ROs who are perceived to be loyal to the PPP. If their loyalty to any Party led them to do anything that was unfair towards another is a matter of concern, and for GECOM to address. The evidence should be presented at an appropriate time and place, and those allegations must be addressed. It would be unfair to call the PPP leadership hypocrites, if they benefitted unfairly from those ROs’ exercise of their rights, under the law, UNLESS, of course, that same leadership would require a different standard in other regions. To the best of my knowledge, Nascimento did not call anyone in the PPP a hypocrite. No one threw any tantrums because of Nascimento’s and the observers’ deafening silence on those matters. Everyone accepted that they were respecting the Law in Regions 2, 3 and 6.

For some strange reason, everyone, local and international, appears to struggle with that same Law when applied to Region 4. I believe what Nascimento’s tantrum has highlighted is that he and his strange bedfellows, locally and internationally, are appalled that one group of Guyanese has the audacity to expect equal rights under the Law. His obviously infantile tantrum amounts to the following question they posed themselves, and the self-serving answer they provide themselves:

Why can’t the members and supporters of the APNU-AFC coalition not accept that whereas all persons are equal under the Law, ‘some are more equal than others’?

Now for their self-serving answer: Since Mr. Granger seems unwilling or incapable of imposing his personal perspective upon every single stakeholder in the ‘Coalition’, that leads to the erroneous conclusion that it must be that he is a hypocrite.

If Kit is not the kid his baseless tantrum depicts, then he must agree that Mr. Granger’s efforts to bring resolution were very well-intentioned; that’s a truth even the blind would recognise. Mr. Granger, however, must not be held responsible for every single action of every member of the ‘Coalition’ he leads, especially when those members/supporters are exercising their democratic right under the Law. All Guyanese are equal under the Law. Ulita Moore’s struggle is really one to keep it so. Kit Nascimento’s tantrum is nothing but childish. Having used it as an opportunity to educate, let us now move on… And I am sure that Kit, the kid, will soon catch up.

Regards,
Mark DaCosta

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana-chronicle-epaper_03_24_2020_