Dear Editor
SO, in 2011, John (now my husband) and I had our first discussion and disagreement about politics. I embraced this because I am never the one to follow the masses, or to be swayed by popular culture, and neither is he. It was my first ‘political’ experience on several counts: my first ‘Election Season’ in Guyana, my first ownership of an ID card and my first time voting.

I remember there was a presidential debate held at the GWLT auditorium at the University of Guyana. I attended because I wanted my vote to have merit. I wanted to make an informed decision. The auditorium was filled to capacity and chants roared from all across the room as people rooted for whichever party they thought was best fit to lead the country. I remember seeing many youths standing and sitting at the front-right of the room. These were PPP/C supporters and representatives decked in red T-shirts, hats and flags, enthusiastically hitting on the desks, stomping and shouting to affirm whatever points were raised by their presidential candidate, who did not have to worry whether his points were substantial or not. His support base was very reassuring!

On the other side of the room were APNU supporters who were just as enthusiastic and behaved in the same manner when points were raised by their presidential candidate. Immediately, I knew that these two parties were major and probably in existence for a longer time than the others. My eyes were filled with glee and excitement. I had never seen anything like this before. As I looked around there were many like me, who had not yet decided on a party, but came with an open mind to hear them out.
The AFC was fresh on the scene. Mr Ramjattan spoke exceptionally well; I was not persuaded per se, but I was overwhelmingly impressed. I don’t remember him having as many supporters, but what he had to say commanded one’s attention. Before I continue let me just plug this in here: the TUF’s presidential candidate was the most outstanding – “if ya know ya know.”

From my perspective, it was at this point that political discussions took a turn and had several views from several angles, because the head table now had new guests who had just as much to offer the people of this country. So John and I talked and we definitely had disagreements and differences, but we had an understanding (to this day I am not sure that we voted for the same people that year and that’s fine)

I have unshakable respect for people who think for themselves and make decisions based on their own convictions. I believe that is the correct way to exercise one’s democratic right, but with all that has been happening recently, I have been thinking that the reality of the situation is, everyone will not think independently. Hear me out.
Throughout this life, I have identified four types of people in our society who are equally important but play very different roles.

1. LEADERS: people who have that innate ability to inspire and influence the decisions made by those around them. These are very powerful people. Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo is a born leader! That man is intellectual, tactful, very calculated, and has the ability to accomplish! Good or bad, he gets things done! I have many friends who stand by his leadership because of how business oriented the man is. However, Mr. Jagdeo’s agenda, priorities and methods are totally different from His Excellency David Granger, who is also a born leader!

Mr Granger’s mere presence demands respect and those who have been around him can attest to this. His hands have been soft and caring towards this nation and I believe that his nature, coupled with the fact that he is family-oriented, is what encourages that passion he has to clean, develop, educate and father this nation. We have seen the evidence and as a young person, this affects me directly.

2. CHALLENGERS: those who delight in thinking for themselves. You cannot lead these people by their noses. Challengers fact-check, do their research, ask questions and make informed deductions that also greatly influence those around them. Challengers can be leaders but, ‘deh don’t fight up with dat.’ They know their place and strengths and usually serve as activists in society in one way or another. If what you’re talking about is right up their lane, expect some traffic before you reach your destination.

1. LEADERS: people who have that innate ability to inspire and influence the decisions made by those around them. These are very powerful people. Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo is a born leader! That man is intellectual, tactful, very calculated, and has the ability to accomplish! Good or bad, he gets things done! I have many friends who stand by his leadership because of how business oriented the man is. However, Mr. Jagdeo’s agenda, priorities and methods are totally different from His Excellency David Granger, who is also a born leader!

Mr Granger’s mere presence demands respect and those who have been around him can attest to this. His hands have been soft and caring towards this nation and I believe that his nature, coupled with the fact that he is family-oriented, is what encourages that passion he has to clean, develop, educate and father this nation. We have seen the evidence and as a young person, this affects me directly.

2. CHALLENGERS: those who delight in thinking for themselves. You cannot lead these people by their noses. Challengers fact-check, do their research, ask questions and make informed deductions that also greatly influence those around them. Challengers can be leaders but, ‘deh don’t fight up with dat.’ They know their place and strengths and usually serve as activists in society in one way or another. If what you’re talking about is right up their lane, expect some traffic before you reach your destination.

3. CHALLENGERS WITH AN AGENDA: For these people, though they are brilliant, money talks! Their biggest motivation is money and positions, and once that is in order they will argue to the dust, even if it means arguing senselessly. They have the intelligence to swing things in their favour. Often- times, challengers with an agenda take extreme measures to make what they are doing believable, because too much is at stake for them. These people have no regard for right and wrong. They will destroy your reputation if you oppose them. They answer questions with questions and justify wrongdoing by highlighting wrongdoing. I deem challengers with an agenda as very dangerous, because they too bear great influence.

4. THE LAYMAN: These people are the vast majority of any population. The economy cannot survive without them. They work hard and many times all they want to hear is about house lots, increased minimum wage, proppa’ healthcare and how deh children getting to school. These people can be very loyal—if you care for them, they care for you. Some tend to be gullible though, easily influenced and manipulated. They will believe what you believe and preach what you tell them. Unfortunately, these are the easy prey in society. The layman is not always an independent thinker so he/she looks to leaders who seem trustworthy. The sick cycle in Guyana is a repeat of the notion that “the leader I can trust is the one who looks like me.”
The chaos I see today involves irresponsible leaders preying on challengers with an agenda, who have no love or respect for the layman. They will continue to brainwash these people and drag them through the mud to fulfil their dirty hidden agendas. This is where my heart bleeds.

Violence and race hate can never be the way. How can that possibly be the way to go when diversity of our cultures and six peoples, unity and love is what we sell to the world as a tourist attraction. The law exists so that order can remain! There is a legal process for matters such as these. Allow law and order to take its course.

We should know that legal processes take time; that is why Irfaan Ali can walk around feeling the wind beneath his wings with 19 CRIMINAL CHARGES and have the audacity to look this nation in the face and solicit our votes.

Put aside race, political differences, put aside even the history of who did and said what in the 1970s 80s and 90s. This is 2020 and the world is watching Guyana and waiting to see if the oil will make us or break us. There are nations also wanting to sift us as wheat and make us believe that their opinions are superior to our laws. That is wicked disrespect to this sovereign land. People open your eyes, I beg.

I already feel ashamed for those who will read and venture to insult, may comprehension and respect for others’ views be your portion this good day. I perceive that this matter is bigger and deeper than our socialisation will allow us to fathom at this point, but the truth exists. It has life and it will find its way to the surface. Again, allow the law to take its course, play your role by praying and encouraging others to stay calm. Respect each other and have patience.
We unfolding nicely!

Regards
Rochelle Maxius-Benn

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_12_2020

Dear Editor
TRADE unionist Lincoln Lewis is misguided. A declaration for District Four can only be made when the District Four Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo, complies with the statutory requirements in Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act.

Given that the verification process for the District Four Statements of Poll was aborted, a declaration should not have been made by Mr. Mingo. The fact that the verification process was not completed means that the declaration made by Mr. Mingo is fraudulent.
Mr. Mingo unilaterally declared the results for District Four after failing to verify almost 60 percent of the Statements of Poll. Of 879 SOPs, only 349 were verified. That leaves 530 Statements of Poll to be verified. It is unfortunate that this fraudulent act by Mr. Mingo followed his commitment to complete the District Four verification process.
This fraudulent act clearly jaundiced the District Four verification process and lead to vehement objections by everyone present except APNU+AFC representatives. Why did the APNU+AFC embrace this anomaly?

The demand for use of the District Four Statements of Poll cannot be unfounded, since Chapter 84 of the Representation of the People Act is pellucid. This is coupled with the fact that Statements of Poll were used for the tabulation of results in the other nine districts.
At no time during the aborted District Four verification process did the People’s Progressive Party/Civic invade GECOM. At no time during the aborted District Four verification process did the PPP/C intimidate GECOM staff or disrupt them from conducting their work. Such accusations are ridiculous.

Instead of peddling what has now become ridiculous rhetoric and falsehoods, Lincoln Lewis should answer the following questions for the Guyanese people:
1. Why is the signature of Volda Lawrence, the Chairperson of the PNCR, affixed to the declaration of the Region Four Returning Officer, when the declarations of the other nine regions have only the stamp and signature of the returning officers of those areas?

2. Why was Amna Ally, the General-Secretary of the PNCR, visiting the GECOM Chairperson at her home, when the chair was unavailable to her international advisers, members of the international election observer missions and the political parties?

3. Why was the GECOM lawyer, Neil Boston, being openly assisted by Roysdale Forde and Darren Wade, two APNU+AFC candidates?

4. Why was the Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, after he made the fraudulent declaration, escorted from the GECOM Command Centre by six ranks of the Guyana Police Force, and has not been seen since nor has been available to any stakeholders in the electoral process, since?

5. Why did former Foreign Affairs Minister Karen Cummings threaten to revoke the accreditation of members of the international Election Observer Missions?

6. Why are former ministers, Cathy Hughes and others, peddling falsehoods about Russians hacking into our electoral system, when that system is a manual one?

7. Why the fear about returning to verification of the election results Statement of Poll by Statement of Poll, and/or a recount, if there is such confidence in an electoral victory?

Regards
Brigadier (Retired) Mark Phillips

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_12_2020

Places 17th out of 30 in the Latin America and Caribbean Region and 73rd out of 128 countries worldwide 

THE World Justice Project (WJP), on Wednesday, released the WJP Rule of Law Index® 2020, an annual report based on national surveys of more than 130,000 households and 4,000 legal practitioners and experts around the world and Guyana saw a slightly improved placing of 73rd out of 128 countries.

According to a press release, the WJP Rule of Law Index measures rule of law performance in 128 countries and jurisdictions across eight primary factors: Constraints on Government Powers, Absence of Corruption, Open Government, Fundamental Rights, Order and Security, Regulatory Enforcement, Civil Justice, and Criminal Justice. The Index is the world’s leading source for original, independent data on the rule of law.

“Guyana’s overall rule of law score increased by less than 1% in this year’s Index. At 73rd place out of 128 countries and jurisdictions worldwide, Guyana improved three positions in global rank. Guyana’s score places it at 17 out of 30 countries in the Latin America and Caribbean region* and 25 out of 42 among upper middle income** countries,” the release said.

Denmark, Norway, and Finland topped the WJP Rule of Law Index rankings in 2020 while Venezuela; Cambodia; and Democratic Republic of the Congo had the lowest overall rule of law scores—the same as in 2019.

It noted that more countries declined than improved in overall rule of law performance for a third year in a row, continuing a negative slide toward weakening and stagnating rule of law around the world. “The majority of countries showing deteriorating rule of law in the 2020 Index also declined in the previous year, demonstrating a persistent downward trend. This was particularly pronounced in the Index factor measuring Constraints on Government Powers,” the release said.

The declines were widespread and seen in all corners of the world, it said, adding that in every region, a majority of countries slipped backward or remained unchanged in their overall rule of law performance since the 2019 WJP Rule of Law Index.

The release said that regionally, Latin America and the Caribbean’s top performer in the Index is Uruguay (22nd out of 128 countries globally), followed by Costa Rica and Chile. The three countries with the lowest scores in the region were Nicaragua; Bolivia; and Venezuela, RB (128th out of 128 countries globally).

“Countries with the strongest improvement in rule of law were Ethiopia (5.6% increase in score, driven primarily by gains in Constraints on Government Powers and Fundamental Rights) and Malaysia (5.1%, driven primarily by gains in Constraints on Government Powers, Fundamental Rights, and Regulatory Enforcement),” it said.

The largest declines in the rule of law were seen in Cameroon (-4.4%, driven primarily by falling scores in Order and Security and Fundamental Rights) and Iran (-4.2%, driven primarily by falling scores in Criminal Justice). Over the last five years, countries experiencing the largest average annual percentage drop in the rule of law were Egypt (-4.6 %); Venezuela, RB (-3.9%); Cambodia (-3.0%); Philippines (-2.5%); Cameroon (-2.4%); Hungary (-2.1%); and Bosnia and Herzegovina (-2.1%), the report said.

“The rule of law is not just a matter for judges or lawyers,” said William H. Neukom, WJP founder and CEO. “It is the bedrock of communities of justice, opportunity, and peace. We are all stakeholders in the rule of law and therefore we all have a role to play in upholding it. The 2020 Index underscores that we have our work cut out for us.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_12_2020

THE Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has condemned a “malicious” attempt to accuse its staff of destroying electoral information in relation to the contested Region Four results.

In a release on Wednesday, the commission stated that it has been made aware of an email purporting to be sent by Personal Assistant to the Chief Election Officer (CEO), Duarte Hetsberger, in which it was alleged that he destroyed electoral information and presented a substituted declaration of the Region Four results.

“The contents of the fake email with attachment being circulated are not authentic and should be disregarded as no such act was committed by Mr. Hetsberger,” GECOM’s Public Relations Officer (PRO) said in a release.

“The commission views this recent malicious act not only as a personal attack on Mr. Hetsberger and the integrity of the Chief Elections Officer, but also an attempt to create mischief and confusion. Persons are therefore urged to be vigilant and do not allow the misinformation peddled by a malicious few to cause distraction and chaos.”

GECOM, in a statement on Sunday, had given its assurance that it will not flout the laws of Guyana, reminding the public that a mandatory injunction granted against it and CEO Keith Lowenfield impedes the finalisation of its work.

“It is important for all relevant parties and members of the public to note that while GECOM is a constitutional agency, it is still subjected to the Laws of Guyana; hence the mandatory injunction granted against the commission and Chief Elections Officer on Thursday, March 5, 2020, has affected the finalisation of the commission’s work at this point,” GECOM Chair, Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh, said in a statement on Wednesday. According to GECOM, while it is unfortunate how things have escalated, it is their intention to abide by all legal and procedural requirements to conclude its work.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_12_2020

…residents urge speedy resolution to impasse

By Vanessa Braithwaite

WHILE Linden remains very peaceful, with no reports of election-related violence, commercial activities in the town have been affected by the elections aftermath, as several business owners decided to either shut shop or change their operating hours to an earlier time.

Residents of Linden are complaining that some items cannot be sourced in stores and this is because trucks supplying these retail and wholesale businesses are not making frequent trips to the mining town. This has forced many business owners to travel to Georgetown in search of items to sell. It was not a successful journey for some, since many supply stores in Georgetown have shut their doors. One grocery seller said she was currently selling from old stocks as most of the suppliers have not come to Linden, since the elections, for her to restock. She remains anxious about the situation and is afraid to travel to Georgetown as some vendors have done.

During a walk-about in Mackenzie Market on Tuesday, this newspaper observed quite a few shops locked, and those that were opened were closing very early. One of the three fruit vendors on the Mackenzie Park was closed, while another had very limited stocks, compared to any normal day. Customers have also complained about the increase in prices for some fruits and vegetables.

Schools and government agencies continue to operate as normal and public transportation remains available.

What is of concern to many residents is the availability of agricultural produce in the mining town since it is heavily dependent on other regions.
“I am very concerned… trucks already not coming up, people hardly buying, this has been my slowest week for the year, so far,” said market vendor, Hildi Sampson.

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL FARMERS

Regional Agricultural Officer, Derrick Collins, encouraged the residents to not get too despondent over the situation relative to the limited agricultural produce coming to the region, but to use this time to support the local farmers as they have been making significant strides to increase their production for times like these. Many residents, he said, are focusing on retail sellers who are dependent on produce from the out-of-town trucks but there are many local farmers who can supply the town at times. The Regional Democratic Council, he said, has been working assiduously with local farmers to increase production in the region and there has been an increase, particularly with exotic crops such as cauliflower, broccoli, spinach, carrots etc.

“We are encouraging residents to support the local farmers; we still have farmers producing and coming out that can even sell to retail farmers on the market so I don’t foresee a problem in Linden where we might not get food and this is when farmers should be encouraged to go back to the land and plant,” Collins said. The RDC had made agriculture a programme head following the 2005 floods on the East Coast which caused major food shortage in Region 10.

In the 2020 budget, he said the RDC will be investing a substantial amount of money in agriculture which will see significant support being given to agricultural communities. Already for 2019, the region has embarked on multiple agricultural projects, the big ticket one being a farm to market road. With these projects, the region is expected to reduce its dependency on outside food markets by 40 per cent by 2022. In addition to this farm-to-market road, farmers have been exposed to climate-smart training aimed at combating extreme weather patterns and climate change. Fourteen shade houses were established, seven of which were in secondary schools across the region, in an effort to encourage agriculture at the school level. The agriculture department is also pushing for more farmers to access agricultural loans in the region through small business financial institutions such as the Linden Enterprise Network and commercial banks.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_12_2020

By Svetlana Marshall
WARNING against any attempts to usurp the powers of the Returning Officer (RO), Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire, in the High Court on Wednesday, made it clear if candidates are dissatisfied with the returning officer, in terms of what is recorded, it is not for them to challenge the figure at that point in time, so as to cause disruption or chaos.
“I do not conclude that the [Representation of the People] Act provides for verification or reconciliation in this sense. This is especially in the context of the well-known fact that 10 political parties contesting the 2020 Elections in District Four, if each were to object, more so in a vociferous or hostile manner, the tabulation process would definitely be delayed, and indeed there may be risk that it is not completed,” she reasoned.

The Chief Justice noted that while the aggrieved persons would no doubt make their concerns known and take note for further action including but not limited to an application for a recount or the filing of an elections petition following the declaration of the results for the general and regional elections, such must be done in an orderly and respectful manner. “To permit otherwise, would be to invite protest and possibly chaos,” she posited.
The Chief Justice, at the time, was handing down a judgment in a case brought against the Returning Officer of Region Four, Clairmont Mingo; the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield; and the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), by Reeaz Holladar on behalf of the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C). In Mingo’s Affidavit in Defence, he told the court that GECOM’s Command Centre was flooded by a large contingent of PPP/C agents who were demanding “verification” of the statements of poll before the declaration of the votes for District Four. “I was made aware of their demands and after consideration of same and having found no merit for their request, I announced that I intended to make my declaration in accordance with Section 84 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, Chapter 1:03. This was met by a loud uproar, threats of violence and menacing conduct by the PPP/C representatives in the building…,” the returning officer had informed the court through his Affidavit in Defence.

The Chief Justice told the parties present that chaos and confusion would not lend to the overall credibility of the process and would “exacerbate the already tense and even volatile situation” that exists during the election period. As such, she called for the duly-appointed candidates of the various political parties to respectfully indicate their concerns, if needs be, going forward, and in a similar fashion, the respectful consideration of the concerns, including the making of corrections or adjustments by the returning officer.

“However, it is not for the persons to so intervene in or stop the tabulation process and ultimately the declaration of the votes, which declaration must be made public because there are of the view that the returning officer has not addressed their concerns,” Chief Justice George-Wiltshire warned. The Chief Justice was also keen on noting that the only official documents that the returning officer can consider are the statements of poll that have been transmitted to him by the presiding officer of the various polling stations pursuant to Section 83. “Any statements of poll, in the possession of agents of political parties or others would not be such,” she made clear.

It was noted that only the returning officer can decide on the avenue to be taken to address any objections or concerns. Such decision, the Chief Justice emphasised, is not within the remit of those persons who are entitled to be present, and to do so, would be to usurp the powers and responsibilities of the returning officer.

Having ruled that the returning officer erred during the process of tabulating the SOPs, the Chief Justice nullified the declaration made by Mingo on March 5, 2020, and ordered that the process recommence.

“It would be for the returning officer and or the deputy returning officer to decide whether in the interest of transparency, the addition process should be restarted or continued where it was left off. It would also be for these functionaries to determine the best method of tabulating the statements of poll,” she stated, as she warned against any attempt to usurp the powers or the returning officer or his deputy. Again, the judge warned that it is not for the parties’ representatives or any other person to determine how the tabulation should be done. Nonetheless, she said one would expect that the returning officer acts reasonably.
Before concluding her judgment, Chief Justice George-Wiltshire, as was done by Chief Justice Bernard some 22 years ago in application by Aubrey Norton, stressed that the decision does not decide the results or validity of the elections for District Four, regionally or nationally.

The Chief Justice said too that is particularly saddening that 19 years after the Hamilton’s case, the words of Chief Justice Bernard still ring- true. “The role of the Elections Commission and its staff is to take such actions as appears necessary to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and any other Acts of Parliament. In the presence of volatile situation which pervades our country, no effort must be spared to assure everyone that the process was fair and impartial…” Justice George-Wiltshire said as she quoted Justice Bernard.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_12_2020

President David Granger, Chairperson of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and Prime Minister of Barbados, the Right Honourable Mia Amor Mottley, OR, Prime Ministers Dr. Keith Rowley of Trinidad and Tobago, Roosevelt Skerrit of Dominica, Keith Mitchell of Grenada (partially hidden) and Ralph Gonsalves of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and CARICOM Secretary-General, Ambassador Irwin LaRocque during yesterday’s meeting. Also pictured, from first left are Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, Vice-President and Minister of Public Security, Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan, Director General, Ministry of the Presidency, Mr. Joseph Harmon, Minister of State, Mrs. Dawn Hastings-Williams and Barbados’ Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr. Dale Marshall (MOTP photo)

…President Granger restates he will abide by constitution

THE delegation of CARICOM leaders which arrived in Guyana on Wednesday have met with President David Granger, members of the main opposition party and the heads of several small parties amidst concerns about the tension over the 2020 General and Regional Elections.

Leading the team was CARICOM Chairman, Prime Minister Mia Mottley of Barbados. She was accompanied by Prime Ministers Dr. Keith Rowley of Trinidad and Tobago, Roosevelt Skerrit of Dominica, Keith Mitchell of Grenada and Ralph Gonsalves of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Also present was Secretary General, CARICOM, Ambassador Irwin LaRocque.

At the meeting at the Ministry of the Presidency (MOTP), President Granger told the leaders that he will continue to abide by the Constitution of Guyana, the ruling of the Supreme Court and the decision of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). According to a release from the MOTP, the President said: “I am committed to the rule of law and the Constitution. We will abide by the declaration of the Elections Commission. Like all of Guyana, we are waiting for the declaration.” He told the leaders that he considers Guyana a continental state with Caribbean characteristics and welcomed the presence of the five regional leaders. He also stated that he has always respected and will continue to respect the decisions of the Court. “We have respected the integrity and autonomous nature of the Elections Commission. We respect the Courts, as independent from the Executive and will abide by the decisions of the Court,” the President assured the Caribbean leaders. In return, Prime Minister Mottley said the regional leaders have travelled to Guyana to find an amicable solution to the challenges facing the country’s leaders. She said that it is undesirable to see the loss of life, injury, and damage to property. “We are conscious that the court has ruled and that the process [validation] has to be continued. We [Caribbean leaders] do not want to see the loss of life, damage to property or injuries,” Mottley said with the full agreement of the other leaders.

President Granger was accompanied by Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo; Vice-President and Minister of Public Security, Khemraj Ramjattan; Director General, Ministry of the Presidency, Joseph Harmon and Minister of State, Dawn Hastings-Williams. At around 18:00hrs yesterday, the delegation arrived at the Leader of the Opposition on Church Street where they met with People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo and other party executives such as Anil Nandlall, Gail Teixeira and Juan Edghill.

Exiting the building, Prime Minister Mitchell said that the talks were progressing well. “We’re getting some progress,” he said. They then left to meet with the leaders of several small parties in Guyana.

Today, they will brief the media on their two-day visitation at the CARICOM Secretariat Headquarters in Georgetown. Mottley, has stated on a previous occasion that the community stands ready to facilitate dialogue between Guyana’s main political leaders and take other necessary actions to aid in the process.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_12_2020

…Court orders GECOM to return to verification process of Region 4 votes
… nullifies declared results; says RO must decide way forward;

By Svetlana Marshall

CHIEF JUSTICE Roxane George-Wiltshire has ruled that the declaration of votes made by the Region 4 Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo, was unlawful, on the grounds that there was substantial non-compliance with Section 84 (1) of the Representation of the People Act when the Statements of Poll (SOPs) for District 4 were tabulated. She then ordered that the verification process, which was interrupted, be resumed or restarted.

The Chief Justice handed down her judgment in the High Court on Wednesday in the case – Reeaz Holladar vs the Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo; the Chief Elections officer, Keith Lowenfield; and the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), before a packed courtroom.
Last Thursday (March 5, 2020) amid loud screams of ‘No’ at GECOM’s Command Centre, Mingo had declared the total number of votes for each List of Candidates in his District for the General and Regional Elections, but Justice George-Wiltshire, after analysing the submissions made by both sides, concluded that Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act, Chapter 01:03 was breached by the Returning Officer. It was explained that while 421 of the 879 SOPs for District 4 were publicly tabulated, there was no evidence to suggest that the remaining 458 Statements of Poll were added in the presence of persons entitled to be there as required by law. “…the declaration made on the 5th March, 2020 by the Returning Officer for District 4 of the total votes cast for District 4 was unlawful, as being in breach of Section 84 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, Chapter 1:03, and is null, void and of no effect,” Chief Justice George-Wiltshire said as she handed down one of the orders sought by Holladar, on behalf of the People’s Progressive Part/Civic (PPP/C). The ruling, in effect, bars GECOM from making a final declaration of the results for the General and Regional Elections, unless and until all of the SOPs for District 4 are tabulated in the presence of those persons entitled to be there in accordance with Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act. “It is also ordered that the Guyana Elections Commission cannot lawfully declare the results of the Elections for March 2nd, 2020 unless and until the Returning Officer or Deputy Returning Officer for District 4 complies with and or ensures compliance with the provisions of Section 84 (1) of Chapter 01:03,” the Chief Justice said as she granted another order sought by Holladar.

Section 84 (1) states: “As soon as practicable after the r eceipt of all the ballot boxes and the envelopes and packets delivered to him in pursuance of Section 83 (10), the Returning Officer shall, in the presence of such of the persons entitled under Section 86 (1) to be present or attend, ascertain the total votes cast in favour of the list in accordance with the Statements of Poll, and thereupon publicly declare the votes recorded for each list of Candidates.” Members of the Commission, duly appointed candidates and counting agents are among persons covered under Section 86 (1) of the Act.

BOUND BY LAW
In justifying her position, the Chief Justice first established the fact that the office of the Returning Officer is statutory in nature and therefore requires he or she to act in accordance with the laws that govern that office, in this case, Chapter 1:03. Failure to do so can result in the Court exercising supervisory powers to direct that there be compliance with the Law. It was noted that the process outlined in Section 84 is meant to engender transparency and accountability.

Transparency
Referencing to the case – Joseph Hamilton v Guyana Elections Commission & Others – a matter adjudicated by Chief Justice Desiree Bernard, as she then was, Chief Justice George-Wiltshire took note of the fact that Section 84 was considered not to be mandatory with respect to the timeframe for the additions of SOPs. “I agreed with Chief Justice Bernard that the timeframe for the commencement of the adding of the votes as recorded in the Statements of Poll is directory as this is to be done as soon as practicable,” Chief Justice George-Wiltshire said while further agreeing that the presence of all persons listed in Section 86 (1) is not required during the addition of the SOPs. However, she said in this era that calls for greater transparency in the actions of public officials, it is mandatory that if persons entitled to be there are present, the addition of the SOPs must be done in their presence. She noted that non-compliance with Section 84 (1) in this regard could result in the process being invalidated. In the interest of transparency, the Laws provide for safeguards such as the posting of SOPs as well as public tabulation of SOPs. “While the failure to post the Statements of Poll in a place of poll, maybe considered directory, as failure to do so would not affect the results recorded; the failure to comply with Section 84 (1) has much more serious consequences,” Chief Justice George-Wiltshire pointed out.

Against this background, the Chief Justice said that the decision boils down to the facts disclosed in the Affidavits submitted by the parties in the matter.

Senior Counsel Neil Boston and Attorney-at-Law Robin Hunte – the attorneys representing the Returning Officer, the Chief Elections Officer and GECOM – submitted a total of six Affidavits. Those included an Affidavit in Defence from Clairmont Mingo and Affidavits in Support from James Bond, Aubrey Norton, John Adams, Nicola Trotman and Roxanne Myers. In the case of the applicant, an Affidavit was submitted by him through his lawyers – Anil Nandlall and Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes. Attorney-at-Law Savitri Sonia Parag was among a number of other persons who submitted Affidavits in support of Holladar.

Flawed process

The Chief Justice said while Section 84 of Chapter 1:03 outlines provisions for the Returning Officer to tabulate the SOPs in the presence of the persons listed in Section 86 (1), there was evidence of substantial non-compliance. “In my view, and I hold, and the facts disclosed, that a significant part of the addition of votes from the Statements of Poll was done in the absence of persons who are entitled to be there, that is, in the absence of elections officers, members of GECOM, duly appointed candidates, counting agents and others with good reason to be present, that is, for example, elections observers, and as such, the process would have been flawed, and there has been a breach of Section 84 (1),” the Chief Justice explained. In his oral submissions, Senior Counsel Boston, on behalf of Mingo, had argued that there was “substantial compliance,” and as such the “principle of the presumption of regularity should be applied,” but the Judge rejected this line of argument.

“There cannot be substantial compliance when the tabulation of 458 Statements of Poll has not been accounted for. The Returning Officer said nothing about how many Statements of Poll had been added onto when he fell ill and left. He did not refute the evidence of the applicant in this regard, that 421 Statements of Poll had been completed, and therefore 458 remained to be completed,” the Chief Justice submitted.

Added to that, she said it was incumbent on the Returning Officer to ensure that the addition was done in the presence of persons entitled to be present. Citing the Affidavit submitted by Parag, the Chief Justice said there is evidence that such persons were available to participate in the process at the time of the tabulation but were not included during the latter half of the process.

It was noted that while the Returning Officer relied heavily on GECOM’s Senior Clerk, Michelle Miller to detail what had happened, no affidavit was submitted by her to outline how the process unfolded under her supervision. The Chief Justice noted that none of the persons who submitted affidavits in support of the respondent accounted for what happened with the tabulation process from the time the Returning Officer left for the hospital around mid-day on March 4, and unto his return later that day.

“I concluded that in the absence of credible evidence about [what] occurred after the Returning Officer left for the hospital, unto the time he made the declaration, then the presumption of regularity cannot apply. It cannot be presumed based on the Returning Officer’s Affidavit that the process was regularly conducted, that is, that there was addition of the Statements of Poll and in the presence of persons entitled to be there; thus I hold that there has been a breach of Section 84 (1) in these regards,” the Chief Justice said.

Such breaches, she emphasized, cannot be condoned.

RO MUST DECIDE ON THE WAY FORWARD
Meanwhile, the Chief Justice made it clear that Chapter 1:03 does not address the issue of verification and or reconciliation of the SOPs as suggested by Parag in her Affidavit. “It does appear to me that there is a misunderstanding as regards operationalising Section 84 (1),” she said.

It was noted that while Section 84 (1) Subsection (1A) (a) and (b) clearly provide for the correction of mistakes in the Statements of Poll, that subsection does not outline how a material error or a mistake is to be brought to the attention of an Elections Officer or a Returning Officer. “I do not conclude that the Act provides for verification or reconciliation in this sense. This is especially in the context of the well-known fact that 10 political parties contesting the 2020 Elections in District 4, if each were to object, moreso in a vociferous or hostile manner, the tabulation process would definitely be delayed, and indeed there may be risk that it is not completed,” she reasoned.

While duly appointed candidates may raise concerns, and those concerns ought to be reasonable, the Chief Justice made it clear that it is not for persons to stop the tabulation process and ultimately the declaration of the votes because the RO did not address their concerns. It is for the Returning Officer to determine how.

Only GECOM SOPs
It was noted that aggrieved persons, can, among other things, file an Election Petition following the declaration of the results for the General and Regional Elections. The Chief Justice was also keen on noting that the only official documents that the Returning Officer can consider are the Statements of Poll that have been transmitted to him by the Presiding Officer of the various polling stations pursuant to Section 83. “Any Statements of Poll, in the possession of agents of political parties or others would not be such,” she made clear.
In handing down the ruling, Chief Justice George-Wiltshire ordered that the addition of the SOPs recommence no later than 11:00hrs today (March 12, 2020). “It would be for the Returning Officer and or the Deputy Returning Officer to decide whether in the interest of transparency, the addition process should be restarted or continued where it was left off. It would also be for these functionaries to determine the best method of tabulating the Statements of Poll,” she stated, as she warned against any attempt to usurp the powers or the Returning Officer or his deputy.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_12_2020

Dear Editor
ON March 5, 2020 after the People’s Progressive Party, its representatives and a number of men who clearly had weapons stormed the GECOM Command Centre, Mr. Roy Beepat issued what can be described as a knee-jerk, emotive and misguided public advisory purportedly on behalf of the management and vendors of Giftland Mall. In this message, Mr. Beepat threatened to close Giftland Mall until further notice and until the rule of law is followed. The advisory also encouraged other business persons to follow suit. I spoke with several vendors who noted that Mr. Beepat never consulted with them, neither were they aware that he would issue such a contemptuous advisory. Some two days after issuing his first public advisory (March 7, 2020), Mr. Beepat walked back his initial remarks by stating that Giftland will reopen from 10am to 3pm.

Mr. Beepat, like most Guyanese, is getting his news about what took place in GECOM and numerous polling places indirectly; in other words, he was not present inside GECOM during the counting and verification for each electoral district. He was also not present at an overwhelming majority of polling places. Importantly, he was not present in GECOM when the PPP’s agents and representatives attempted to overthrow GECOM, twice, some with guns in hand and waist. Instead of speaking out about this, the threats directed at the GECOM Chairperson, Mr. Lowenfield and other GECOM officials, something that is treasonous and has never happened in the history of Guyana, he issues a calculated, partisan advisory because he thinks this would position him for political favours.

Readers, Giftland Mall sits on nine acres of commercial land which Mr. Beepat acquired several years ago when the PPP was at the helm of government. Mr. Beepat pays less than $200,000 per year for this land; this is way below market value. There are other commercial land leased in the area for three to five times as much as he pays yearly. His remarks are utterly hypocritical and calculated to bring pressure to a sitting government and its supporters. Mr. Beepat also has an option to buy the nine acres of land on which he sits for $12m. He has leased this land more than six years. As someone remarked to me, why would he buy when he has a sweetheart lease that was given to him by the Donald Ramotar- led government?

I do hope that Mr. Beepat publicly apologises to the citizens of this country, the Government of Guyana, patrons of Giftland Mall and the vendors who are paying him a rent to sell in the mall. We know that his remarks were misguided, emotive and partisan, so much so that he failed to even consult and consider the very people who are paying him rent in Giftland Mall.

Regards
R. Chung-A-On

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_12_2020

THE APNU+AFC Coalition strongly condemned the People’s Progressive Party for misleading and misinforming the people of Guyana, said a press release from the coalition.

It said that on a television programme called Elections 2020 Update broadcast on Tuesday, March 10, featuring the PPP’s Joseph Hamilton, Priya Manickchand and another individual, Hamilton falsely stated that a recount was done in District 5. His assertion was not corrected by Manickchand who appeared to have been in support of the patently false declaration.

Specifically the following is a transcript of the relevant part of the programme:

oseph Hamilton: “APNU indicated that they will challenge and ask for recount in Region 3, I don’t think they went through with that. I know they also ask for request in region five and six… only Region 5 the recount was done and the recount at their behest showed nothing changed.”

Priya Manickchand: “Something did, the PPP got two or three more votes.”

The release said that the facts are that a recount had commenced in District 5 which has a total of 179 ballot boxes but only seven boxes were counted after the process was hastily aborted. A total of 172 ballot boxes is yet to be recounted in District 5.

“APNU+AFC wishes to further clarify that its request for recount in District 3 was denied by the Returning Officer. APNU+AFC calls on the PPP to desist from spreading lies and misinformation and to withdraw from their propaganda onslaught of total and complete falsehoods being unleashed on the innocent people of this nation,” the release said.

The coalition said that the “campaign of lies” is “designed to mislead the populace and create instability, fear and ultimately destabilize the society” and that the APNU+AFC will hold the PPP wholly accountable as the intellectual authors, initiators and instigators of any destabilization which takes place as a result.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_12_2020