By Bart S. Fis her 

THERE has been a lot of loose talk by the PPP/C about possible sanctions that might be imposed by the United States and other countries against Guyana and/or its Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield, if the PPP/C is not declared the winner of the March 2 general election. Quite simply, under the relevant U.S. statutes, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act passed by Congress in 2012, the Inter national Economic Emergency Act of 1977 and the Trading with the Enemy Act, there would be no legal basis for doing such a thing. 

The situation is this: Mr. Lowenfield, in his capacity as Chief Elections Officer of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), has determined that, on the basis of valid votes, the APNU + AFC Coalition prevailed in the election by 5,482 more valid votes than the PPP/C. Mr. Lowenfield found serious fraud on the part of the PPP/C, with ballots cast exceeding the number of persons on the Official List of Electors, ballots for one electoral district in another, duplicate ballots carrying the same number, and missing poll books. In other words, he determined that a simple tabulation of the votes, which would include votes fraudulently cast, would not yield a legitimate, credible result. This line of argument was accepted by the Court of Appeal on June 22, which ruled that Mr. Lowenfield is obliged to produce a result on the basis of more valid votes cast. It is preposterous to assert that the United States could or would impose sanctions if GECOM were to follow the guidance of its Chief Elections Officer, who in tum is following the guidance of the Guyana Court of Appeal. 

GECOM’s job is to produce a credible recount based on valid votes, and to not accept votes that are not credible. There would be no legal authority in the United States to impose sanctions in this situation. Mr. Fazal Yussuff, the Chairman of the International Center for Democracy, has called for U.S. sanctions against Mr. Lowenfield, citing the U.S. sanctions imposed in 2018 against Roberto Rivas Reyes. for “perpetuating electoral fraud that underminecl the Nicaragua’s electoral. institutions.” The Nicaragua precedent is not applicable in this case, in which precisely the opposite has occurred. Mr. Lowenfield has upheld the democratic process in Guyana by refusing lo count fraudulently cast ballots. In addition, Mr. Rivas Reyes was also accused of massive corruption. 

The U.S. Treasury Department found that despite a government salary of$60,000 per year, “Rivas has been accused in the press of amassing sizeable personal wealth, including multiple properties, private jets, luxury vehicles. and a yacht.” That al legation has not been made against either Mr. Lowenfield or Claudette Singh, the Chair­person of GECOM. Nor is the 20 19 Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) case, in which the U.S. sanctioned three top election officials for alleged corruption tied to its presidential election, relevant for this case The central allegation in that case was that the officials embezzled funds that were supposed to have been used to carry out a timely democratic vote. That allegation has not been made in the case of Guyana or its election officials. 

Any sanctions that the United States would impose against Guyana or GECOM would be controlled by the legal principle enunciated in the case of United States v. Yoshida International, Inc., 326 F. 2d 560 (C.C.P A. 1973): is the action of the President “reasonably and appropriately related” to the authorizing statute and the action undertaken? To sanction Guyana or any of its officials would stand Magnitsky’)’ and the other possibly relevant statutes on their head, by sanctioning those officials whose “offense” was to have an election based on more valid votes cast! The PPP/C, however, does know a thing or two about sanctions and corruption, having run a nar­co-state during its tenure in which drug proceeds, ac­cording to Freedom House, accounted for between forty and sixty percent of formal economic activity, and mon­ey laundering and gold smug­gling were endemic problems criticized by the U.S. Depart­ment of State. Extra-judicial killings were also a specialty of the house during the reign 9f the PPP/C. This track record of violence and fraud will surely discourage the United States from impos­ing sanctions on Guyana for carrying out its democratic election processes. 

(Bart S. Fisher is an Attorney and Partner at J.J&B. Hot bolds a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School and a Ph.D. international Relations from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He served on the Board of Directors of the Center for Democracy, which monitored elections around the world).

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_07_2020

Dear editor,
I TELL you this and I tell you this with an abundance of confidence. If ever you have the unfortunate experience of meeting Freddie Kissoon, first he will tell you his name, but immediately after that he will boast that he is an academic. The fact is that Freddie is a very insecure man and hidden beneath his thin skin is that high school dropout. Freddie is the first academic in the world without a Phd or any original research. The evidence of Freddie’s limited academic ability or intellectual capacity can be seen in his daily gossip columns. These columns are devoid of any deep analysis supported by scientific evidence. Basically, they are hogwash, amalgamated with hormonal rants and ad hominem attacks.
I say this because since I wish to examine his Sunday’s instalment. I intentionally stated examine and not analyse, since I do not analyse trash. Essentially on the day of prayers and fasting, Freddie chose to desecrate our homes with the trashy article titled, “The Secretary-General isn’t going to let Granger dirty CARICOM.” Predictably, the research-shy “academic” used the CARICOM report as the gold standard of the election recount; but today I rather debunk Freddie’s argument using established scientific standards.
First let’s examine the term “reasonably credible” that the CARICOM scrutinising team erroneously used to describe the recount. “Reasonably credible” is a term used for research subgroup analyses to establish correlation between the subgroup and the total cohort. It is an established fact that the CARICOM scrutinising team scrutinized only 423 ballot boxes, which is the subgroup of the total of 2339 boxes. What the CARICOM scrutinising team has stated in a clumsy way, with the use of the term “reasonably credible” as it pertains to the subgroup, is that the findings of 423 ballot boxes scrutinised is reflective of the whole group, i.e., the 2339 boxes. In my opinion this is a grave error on the part of the CARICOM scrutinising team in conflating the term “reasonably credible” in an attempt to describe the recount when it is a term used in subgroup analysis. My next step is to establish what evidence informed their conclusion that the subgroup analysis is “reasonably credible.”
The key to critically appraising a piece of research is to try to retrace in your head the steps taken by the researcher, with a view to determine if the steps taken can be repeated, producing the same results. The language used in academia is whether the findings are reproducible? Implied in this argument is the need for the researcher to describe the steps taken to facilitate critical appraisal and peer review. As a result, when I read this report, I attempted to retrace the methodological steps taken by the authors. First question I asked of this report is what was the methodology used to determine the minimum number of ballot boxes needed to be scrutinised to establish correlation? Essentially, why 423 and not 523? It is established that before any subgroup analysis is undertaken, a statistician should analyse the total number along with other demographic variables to ascertain the minimum number needed to be scrutinised to confidently reflect a true representation of the total. The fact is, there is no evidence of this critical calculation in this report, yet the CARICOM scrutinising team and others like Freddie Kissoon would confidently claim that the 423 ballot boxes scrutinised are reflective of the total. Further, on reading this report, it is evident that the CARICOM scrutinising team simply turned up at the ACCC for 33 days and 423 ballot boxes just happened to be the number of ballot boxes scrutinised during that period. This is far from scientific and in my opinion the positive correlation they have alluded to is essentially a guesswork. Even further,  as I continued to interrogate the report, I attempted to determine whether statistical language and calculations were within it. Such language include p-values, CI ect and are critical to determine if the findings were by chance or how confident can we be of the findings. Sadly these were not present in the report. “Reasonably credible” now appears to incredible.
Some may ask where am I heading with this. It is simple: many are viewing this report as gold standard that supersedes the CEO’s report. It is for this reason that I was forced to examine the research foundations it stands on. Sadly, there was absolutely no foundation. What evidence have they provided to convince the readers that the 18.08% is reflective of the total? None? They produced a number, stated that it is reflective and expected us to accept it as fact.  Even if that correlation has been established, did they confidently argue that it was not by chance? No! Further, my critical appraisal only examined the quantitative aspect of the report. For this I am certain, the qualitative aspect would fare far worse under any forensic eye.
So Freddie Kissoon with his paltry academic ability would use as his scientific evidence persons who support the report, despite those being their personal and not professional opinions. Surely, any true academic, which Freddie is not, would have an inquisitive mind. A mind searching for answers. A mind that would not take someone’s opinion as gospel, without scrutinising the evidence themselves. Sadly, many are running around with this report in their hands, supporting it based on what they heard and not their own analysis. This for me is a sad state of affairs and is partly the reason we as a people are consistently disrespected like a herd of sheep that simply follow blindly. In my opinion, and it pains me to say this,  this is the very reason a substandard CARICOM report was thrown in our laps with the instruction, FOLLOW emboldened on its cover. What makes it even more painful, is the irrefutable fact that anyone with limited experience in academia would recognise the severe limitations of the report which I have highlighted, and rightfully disregard it as gold standard. Apparently, many in red haven’t.
Finally, it is irrelevant what report Mr. Granger supports, if he supports any at all. What is paramount is that GECOM follow the constitution and support the CEO’s report. To me that is what Guyanese should focus on, as Freddie continues to clutch at straws.

Regards
Dr. Mark Devonish

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_07_2020

MINISTER of Legal Affairs and Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, S.C., has said that with all of the ‘checks and balances’ in Guyana’s constitution functional and functioning, Guyana has itself an accountable, transparent and democratic government.

He made these remarks during an airing of his programme, ‘Issues in the News,’ during which he took the time to speak on the fundamental pillars of democracy.

He said: “Democracy is not only free and fair elections, but also involves governing in a particular manner, governing with true accountability, true transparency and in a responsible manner and that includes the enactment of laws that would ensure transparent governance and accountable governance.”

Nandlall posited that from August 2020 to now, one would see all the elements of accountable, responsible and transparent governance with all the checks and balances in the constitution functioning.

Against this backdrop, he added that the various service commissions are there, the Auditor General’s office is functioning and operating independently, the parliament is functioning and the judicial branch is functioning independently of the executive.
Giving that overview, the Attorney General expressed, “What we have in Guyana is an accountable, transparent, democratic government.”

He went on to note that several protocols have been established by the government to ensure that there is transparency at every level.

Giving one such example, he noted that the cabinet which is chaired by the President himself brings together permanent secretaries and places them before Cabinet to have discussions in respect of an accountable, transparent and democratic government.

As such, every minister is required as per the instruction of the President to meet with the senior management team of their respective ministries and ensure that project time frames are met and laws which govern procurement and the execution of contracts, are scrupulously followed.

He said: “We have established a unit within each ministry and the unit at the Attorney General Chambers to address the issue of breach of contracts… the government’s infrastructural development programme. On a regular basis, the President himself would meet management teams from the various ministries and public corporations such as GWI, GuySuCo and, of course, the various ministries, top managers, and speak to them directly about their conduct, about accountable governance and the behaviour and to ensure that the laws of the country are complied with, and to speak obviously about corruption, about allegations of corruption, etcetera.”

This, AG Nandlall said is not a one-off activity but a continuous part of governance in which the government is engaged.

Additionally, he indicated that the President, Vice President and government ministers have been travelling to all regions, as well meeting with officials who deal with contracts and having similar conversations with them.

With this, he said that they understand that problems exist but the government is being proactive and doing as much as possible to ensure that as far as possible they have a responsible and transparent government in Guyana.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_07_2020

• Berbice PNCR supporters warn foreign parties hoping to influence CCJ decision today.

BERBICE supporters of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) party, a faction of the incumbent A Partnership :for National Unity+ AFC (APNU+AF(.) government, took to the streets of their respective villages and communities on Monday in protest of what they believe is an invasion of Guyana’s sovereignty. 

Bearing placards with such slogans as ‘No foreign interference’, ‘We need to breathe’, and ‘Respect our Sovereignty’, the move reportedly served to remind fellow Caribbean Community (CARJCOM) member states and other nations with vested interest in how the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections matter before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) plays out today, that Guyana is an independent sovereign nation, and should be treated a5 such and with the respect it deserves. 

It came as Guyana joined with sister CARICOM member states in celebrating 47 years of regional integration, since the historic signing of the Treaty of Chaguaramas on July 4, 1973.

Following the protest action, which lasted under an hourin each area without incident, the protesters returned to their homes . 

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_07_2020

By Svetlana Marshall

AS the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) prepares to hand down its decision tomorrow, legal luminaries from the Caribbean and the United Kingd.om have said that Guyana’s Constitution and the Caribbean Court of Justice Act have effectively ousted the jurisdiction of the regional Court from adjudication on any decision made by the Guyana Court of Appeal, under Article 177 (4) of the Constitution, and as such the CCJ has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C),

The PPP/C, through its General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo. and Presidential Candidate, lrfaan Ali, wants the CCJ, not withstanding the outer clause in Article 177 (4) to set aside the June 22 decision of Guyana’s Court of Appeal that the President must be elected based on the majority of valid votes cast at the General and Regional Elections held last March.

But the application has received major pushbacks, with lawyers from the Caribbean Region and the United Kingdom indicating that the CCJ ought to reject the application, on the basis that it has absolutely no jurisdiction to hear the case. Among those lawyers are Guyana’s Attorney-General, Basil William’s; Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel Reginald Armour and John Jeremie; Antigua and Barbuda’s Queen’s Counsel, Justin Simon; Grenadian Queen’s Counsel, Dr. Francis Alexis; and Queen’s Counsel, Dr. Richard Wilson, a visiting Professor of Law at the Coventry University in the United Kingdom. 

From the onset, Senior Counsel John Jeremie, the lead attorney representing Eslyn David, the first-named respondent, argued that there is no room for an appeal under Article 177 (4) of the Constitution. In his written submission to the CC.J, Jeremie explained that the relief sought in David’s Notice of Motion for the interpretation of Article 177 (2) (b) fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal (CoA), as provided in Article 177 (4).

The wording and operation of Article 177 (4) operates as a complete bar to any appeal to the CCJ. Once the CoA has exercised its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 177 ( 4 ), its decisions are final and cannot be subject to review, except by the CoA similarly exercising powers under Article 177 (4),” the Trinidadian Senior Counsel explained.

Article 177 (4) of the Constitution confers on the Court of Appeal an exclusive original constitutional jurisdiction “to bear and determine any question as  to the validity of an election of a President in so far as the question depends upon  the qualification of any person for election, or the interpretation of this Constitution.

LIMITED JURlSDICTION 

In representing the interest of Joseph Harmon, the A Partnership for National Unit + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Agent, Senior Counsel Reginald Armour told the CCJ that in addition to Article 177 (4), the Agreement, under which it was established and the Caribbean Court of Justice Act limit its jurisdiction.

In support of his position, Armour alluded to Article XXV (5) of the Agreement, which states: “Nothing in this Antigua and Barbuda Queen’s Counsel, Justin Simon 

Article shall apply to matters in relation to which the decision of the Court of Appeal of a Contracting Party is, at the time of the entry into force of the Agreement pursuant to the Constitution or any other law of that Party, declared to be final. 

Though Ali and Jagdeo, through their lead attorney, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, have argued that the word “decision” in Article XXV (5) must be interpreted to mean a decision which the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to make, Armour told the CCJ that such interpretation in not consistent with the ordinary meaning of the word, as utilised in Article XXV (5). He submitted to the Court that the Constitution and Laws governing the CCJ are pellucid. 

“The primacy of the sovereign Co-operative Republic’s indigenous Court of Appeal was explicitly recognised, lauded and expressly preserved as final and this Court, the CCJ was incorporated by Parliament into the fabric of the domestic law of Guyana and expressly told it has no jurisdiction as decreed by Article 177 (4) of the Constitution,” Armour said while referencing both Grenadian Queen’s Counsel, Dr. Francis Alexis the Agreement under which the CCJ was established and Guyana’s Caribbean Court of Justice Act. 

To further support his position, Armour alluded to a lecture given by CCJ Judge Winston Anderson in 2013 at the Norman Manley Law School, in which the limitation of the Caribbean Court of Justice was recognised. “‘If issues cannot be appealed to the CCJ, the CCJ cannot consider them, and if the CCJ cannot consider them, then they cannot be in- eluded in the building blocks of the Court’s jurisprudence. It is that simple. What we end up with is a jurisprudence that is limited in scope. But there is very little, if any- thing, that the CCJ can do to change this situation ” he quoted Justice Anderson as saying while lecturing on the topic, ‘The Caribbean Court of Justice and the Development of Caribbean Jurisprudence.’ 

Guyana’s Attorney-General, Basil Williams, in put- ting forward a similar line of argument, pointed to Section 4 (3) of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act, which states, “Nothing in this Act shall confer jurisdiction on the Court to hear matters in relation to any decision of the Court of Appeal which at the time of entry into force of this Act was declared to be final by any law_” 

He submitted that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is guaranteed by both the Constitution and CCJ Act. 

“lt is submitted that Sec­tion 4 (3) preserves the ju­risdiction of the Court of Appeal, and has overriding effect over any other provi­sion in the CCJ Act. Through the use of the words ‘Nothing in this Act shall confer jurisdiction on the Court ‘, the Parliament of Guyana saved the law which speaks to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and reaf­firmed the Court of Appeal as the only Court to adjudicate on those matters stated in Article 177 (4),” Williams told the Court. 

He explained that while the Caribbean Court of Justice Act clothes the CCJ with both an original and appellate jurisdiction, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is preserved under Section 4 (3) with regards to cases brought under Article 177 (4). From all indications, ht said, the decisions made by the Courl of Appeal under Article 177 ( 4) art final. 

SUBSTANTIVE  PROVISION 

He noted that while Sections 6 and 8 of the Caribbean Courl of .Justice Act deal with matters of procedure with respect to appeals to the Court, those sections are subject 10 Section 4 (3), which is lite substantive provision under the rubric of the “Jurisdiction of the Court.” 

While Mendes, in his submissions, agreed tha1 the CCJ cannot hear an appeal to the Court of Appeal’s decision made under Article 177 (4), he has argued that on June 22, the Court of Appeal did not make a decision under Article 177 (4), because i1 had no jurisdiction to do so. 

But this contention was rejected by Jeremie, Armour and Williams. In their submissions, they made it clear that the Court of Appeal did nothing more than interpret Article 177 (2) (b) as provided for in Article 177 (4). 

Antigua and Barbuda’s Queen’s Counsel, Justin Simon, who appeared in association with 1he Attorney-General, explained that the core of David’s Monion was for an interpretation of Article 177 (2) {b), which outlines the procedure for the election of a President. He pointed out that the Court of Appeal, in its decision, simply interpreted the words “more votes , are cast” to mean “more valid votes are cast

“This was the specific relief which was given, because there were no coercive orders made by the Court of Appeal. And in giving that interpretation, the Court of Appeal was looking at the broad meaning of the words which were used in Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act.

It is our respectful contention, therefore, that what was sought was an interpretation of a Constitutional provision, and as such, we submit that. Article 177 (4) gives to the Court of Appeal, in no uncertain terms, the exclusive jurisdiction to bear the motion which had been filed by the first respondent,” the Antigua and Barbuda Queen’s Counsel submitted to the court. He iterated that Oil the basis that the decision was made under Ankle 177 (4), it is final. 

LIBERAL INTERPRETATION 

Jurisdiction aside, be asked the judges what is the harm in giving a liberal interpretation of the words identified by David in Ankle 177 (2) (b). 

Amid contentions by Jagdeo and Ali’s at­torneys that David’s case ought 10 have been filed in the High Court via an Elections Petition, Queen’s Counsel Simon turned the CCJ’s attention to the case, Reeaz Holladar v the Returning Officer, in which the Court adjudicated outside of an Elections Petition, albeit that the issue: arose during the elections process. Reference: was also made to 1he case Ulita Moore v the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), which was also filed and adjudicated upon during the ongoing elections. 

ln an opinion piece seen by the Guyana Chronicle, Grenadian Queen’s Counsel, Dr. Francis Alexis said that not only was the Court of Appeal correct in establishing jurisdiction. but also in its interpretation of the Constitution. Dr. Alexis submitted that both the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act pro­vide for election of a President based on valid votes. 

“The mantra of Article 162(1) (b) of the Constitution and its constitutionalising the ROPA (Representation of the People Act) whose section 96(1) requires that there be calculated ‘valid voles’ is that a person be elected as the President on the basis of only valid votes,” the Constitutional Queen’s Counsel said. 

OVERRULE CONSTITUTION 

He said 10 assume jurisdiction would be to overrule the constitutional provisions provided for in Articles 177 (4) and 162 (1) (b). 

“A final appellate court, as is the CCJ, undoubtedly has a wide inherent jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal to it. But such a court does not grant such leave when doing so would overrule constitutional provisions. Granting such special leave in this case would involve the CCJ overruling both Article 177(4) of the Constitution which makes the ruling of the Court of Appeal ‘final’, and Article 162( I) (b) of the Constitution constitutionalising the command in Section 96(1) of ROPA that wha1 is calculated is 1he 101lll number ‘valid votes’. CCJ should not thus overrule both those provisions of the Constitution,” Dr. Alexis reasoned. 

He said that from all indications, the appel­lants have no real prospect of success in an appeal, on the basis that the decision of the Court of Appeal is final, and based on 1he undeniable fact tha1 Article 162 (1) (b) of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act man­date a calcula1ion of valid votes. 

The application for special leave 10 appeal, he said, should therefore be refused. 

CONCURRENCE 

Queen’s Counsel Dr. Richard Wilson, who also whole an opinion piece on the case before the CCJ, drew distinction between Article 163 and Article 177 (4). Notably, the Constitution, under Article 163, gives the High Courl exclusive jurisdiction to determine any question regarding the qualification for election as a member or the National Assembly and equally important, whether an election was lawfully conducted or its result affected by any unlawful acl or omission. No mention, Dr. Wilson poinled out, was made on the election of a President. 

” … conspicuous by its absence in Article 163 is any mention of questions dealing with the interpretation of the Constitution relating to an election of (a] President. Nor is there any provision that expressly grants the High Court jurisdiction in relation 10 the interpretation of the Constitution on any such question,” Dr. Wilson reasoned. 

Unlike Article 163, the Law Professor said clear mention was made of 1he election of the President in Article 177. In fact, there are four Articles in the Constitution – 91, 95 (3), 177 and 183 (3) (c), that touch on the issue of an election of a President, however, only Article 177 ( 4), provides for the determination of any question relating to the validity of an election of a Presi­dent, in so far as that question depends upon an interpretation of 1he Consti1u1ion. 

‘the silence in Article 163 on determination of any question as to the validity of an election of a President in so far as that question depends on the interpreta1ion of the Constitu1ion; the express provision in Article 177 (4) mandating the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to hear and determine such questions; and the absence of any provision elsewhere in the Constitution that purports to deal with the interpretation of the Constitution in relation to the validity of an election of a President,” Dr. Wilson said, cannot be ignored. 

He added: ”It is reasonable to conclude that the legislative intention must have been that the Court of Appeal, and not the High Court, would have exclusive jurisdiction on all such questions pursuant to Article 177 (4).” 

Dr. Wilson iterated that under Article 177 (4), the Conrt or Appeal bas exclusive jurisdiction to bear and determine question as to the validity of an election of a President in so far as that question depends on the interpretation of the Constitution and not the high Court.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_07_2020

…ECD villages protest as Guyana awaits CCJ ruling on elections

By Naomi Parris
SUPPORTERS of the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) + Alliance for change (AFC) coalition, on Monday, staged a country-wide peaceful protest stretching from Berbice, the East Coast of Demerara, Georgetown, all the way to Linden.

The supporters who were seen clad in the party’s colour as well as face masks stood along the public roads of their various communities silently holding up cards which read ‘CCJ must respect Guyana’s Constitution’ and ‘Respect our Sovereignty ’.

Speaking at one of the protests at Plaisance, on the East Coast of Demerara, Region four’s chairwoman, Ms. Genevieve Allen, stated that, on the occasion of the Caribbean Community’s (CARICOM’s) 45th anniversary, Guyanese have very little to celebrate as they await the decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice in the case against the country’s appeal court.

“Today we are out here demonstrating that the Appeal Court of Guyana has the final say in the affairs of Guyana and I am quite sure that the learned judges of the CCJ know that and I am sure that, on Wednesday, we will hear that the decision is that they don’t have jurisdiction against the appeal court’s decision that was made concerning the March 2nd elections,” she stated.

Additionally, Allen stated that the APNU+AFC government would have transformed Guyana significantly over the past five years while in government, and must be given the chance to continue the work it has started to take Guyana to further development.

Meanwhile, on the Buxton public road, Kidackie Amsterdam, who led several Buxtonians to protest, disclosed that the protest was an impromptu event which saw citizens taking up the initiative to stand with the government that they voted for, and to support the position that the Caribbean Court of Justice has no jurisdiction in Guyana’s elections matter. “We are saying by the show of our presence that we are supportive of the fact that our constitution… the constitution of a sovereign Guyana and article 177-4 says that the appeal court has the exclusive and final jurisdiction in this matter”, Amsterdam told the Guyana Chronicle.

He further noted that supporters are also calling on the CARICOM leaders and other international observers to ‘back down’ and respect Guyana’s sovereignty since they have shown a bias in the current election matter.

During the protest, the Guyana Chronicle caught up with a young first-time voter who expressed disappointment with the proceedings with the March 2nd elections.

‘We are frustrated’

21-year-old Audlie Waton said, “ I’m shocked that the process is taking this long and I think that everyone’s vote should be counted but only the valid votes because a winner cannot be announced on invalid votes because if we are talking about being fair and having credible elections then all valid votes should be counted and I think that the CARICOM observer team, CCJ and other international bodies should insist that all valid votes be counted…I think they should also respect Guyana’s sovereignty.”

In sharing similar sentiments, Devon Brutis who voted for the second time in the general elections disclosed that he did not expect the process to take so long hence he is protesting for the swift swearing-in of a president.

In expressing her frustrations during the protest, one woman, Evette Errod, stated, “All we are hearing is the government is illegal and illegal… then do what is right and swear in one so that we can get law and order. In the absence of law and order there is chaos and we don’t want that kind of confusion, we are one people, one nation, one destiny. We don’t want to destroy anybody; we all should live as one.”

The woman further exclaimed that CARICOM leaders should understand and respect Guyana’s constitution and the courts of the country, “The Court of Appeal remains supreme. CCJ does not have any jurisdiction. Our court of appeal is final and they said only valid votes must be counted.”

Meanwhile, another protestor, Remmington Samuels, stated that he believes the sooner a president is sworn in and parliament resumes, the country will be able to put a control to the rapidly-spreading COVID-19 disease, as well as other affairs. “You know as soon as they swear in a president, we could control the virus because it just keeps climbing and the elections thing just taking away from that.”

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), on Wednesday, is set to make a decision on whether it can assume jurisdiction in a challenge seeking to set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeal that the election of the President must be on the basis of “valid votes.”

President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders, who led a panel of five judges, made the announcement on Wednesday (July 1) after hearing more than five hours of legal arguments, virtually, on whether the CCJ has jurisdiction to hear the case filed by People’s Progressive Party/Civic’s (PPP/C’s) General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo and Presidential Candidate, Irfaan Ali; and if it has jurisdiction, whether the Court of Appeal’s decision that the words “more voters are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution are interpreted to mean “more valid votes are cast,” should be upheld or set aside. The ruling will be delivered at 15:00hrs on Wednesday, July 8, 2020.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_07_2020

Protest alleges meddling by CARICOM diplomatic community in elections 

By Naomi Marshall

LINDEN supporters of the A Partnership for National Unity and the Alliance For Change’ (APNU+AFC) coalition joined the series of countrywide protests that occurred simultaneously on Monday to make clear their position that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has no jurisdiction over the Guyana elections case.

Linden’s peaceful picketing was led by former Member of Parliament Jermaine Figueira and saw supporters holding placards that read: “CCJ MU ST RESPECT GUYANA’S CON STITUTION”; “NO FOREIGH N INTER FERENCE,’. and “CEO FOLLOWED GUYANA’S LAW. 

In an invited comment, Figueira stated that the supporters believe that several CARICOM leaders have made statements that are believed to be “premature, uncalled for and has interference [sic) in Guyana’s electoral process.”

However, he noted that on July 6, CARICOM Day, APNU+AFC supporters want the CARJCOM community to know explicitly that Guyana is a sovereign state and not a colony of CARJCOM; as such, foreign interference in Guyana’s electoral process will not be tolerated. Figueira highlighted CARJCOM Chairman Ralph Gonsalves’ statement,”no one would be allowed to steal the elections,” and added that Guyana is in agreement with his statement. 

The former Member of Parliament added, “We as Guyanese would never allow anyone to steal our elections, knowing that we would have discovered a lot of irregularities tantamount to electoral fraud and we are of the view that an election should be one in which only valid votes are tabulated. and in that respect we agree with Mr. Gonsalves that the elections cannot be stolen, by the tabulation of invalid votes. It must be preserved by the tabulation of only valid votes.” 

lie went on to say, “that is why we went to our apex. court, our indigenous court, our highest court which the constitution of Guyana provides for, which was for an interpretation of what ‘val id votes’ meant. The majority of the judges on, the appeal court said that ‘more votes’ meant ‘more valid votes’ and that is the position we stand by and that is the position that we want CARICOM to understand that we stand by and we believe that the true will of the Guyanese people will be demonstrated by the tabulation of only valid. votes.·, 

Me an while, young supporter of the APNU+AFC coalition, Devin Sears, in an interview with the Guyana Chronicle highlighted Article 177 (4) of the Constitution which states: ‘The Court of Appeal shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to the validity of an election of a President in so far as the question depends upon the qualification of any person for election or the interpretation of this Constitution; and any decision of that court under this paragraph shall be final.” 

Sears noted that when Guyana signed on to the CCJ in 2001, any of the laws Guyana would had had prior to the signing should remain intact. He stated that the other CARICOM countries that have not yet signed on to the CCJ are watching and it is important for the CCJ to maintain its good reputation which will contribute to those countries’ decisions to either sign on to the CCJ or not.

Mark Goring, APNU+AFC Candidate for Region I 0, noted that he wants the CCJ to respect Guyana’s constitution by doing the right thing, which is to state that it has no jurisdiction over the Guyana elections case.

Gori ng ma de hi s expectations clear, noting, “We expect our President to be sworn in by the end of the week and we expect all Guyanese to be calm. There will be a winner, there will be a loser and in this case APNU+AFC is the winner and we ask that the supporters of the opposition recognise that their leaders have tried to steal an election and we hope they understand that stealing is not pem1itted in Guyana and we want peace in our country, we want peace to reign.” 

On Wednesday July 8, 2020, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will hand down its decision on whether it can assume jurisdiction in a challenge seeking to set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeal that the election of the President must be on the basis of valid votes.” 

President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders, who ltd a panel of five judges made the announcement on Wednesday (July I) after bearing more than five hours of legal arguments virtually on whether the CC.I has jurisdiction to bear the case filed by People’s Progressive Party/ Civic’s (PPP/C’s) General ­Secretary Bharrat .Jagdeo and presidential candidate Irfaao Ali; and if it bas jurisdiction, whether the Court of Appeal’s decision that the Words “more voters are cast” in Article 177 (2) (h) of the Constitution arc interpreted to mean “more valid votes .art cast,” should be upheld or set aside. The ruling will he delivered at 15:00hrs on Wednesday.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_07_2020

APNU+AFC Georgetown supporters tell regional community that CCJ has no jurisdiction on current elections case

By Lisa Hamilton 

APNU+AFC protesters, from various parts of the country, took to the streets on Monday morning, ahead of the Caribbean Court of Justice’s (CCJ’s) decision, expected on Wednesday, to make clear their position that the Court bas no jurisdiction on the current Guyana elections case. 

The groups of protesters were present in Georgetown at locations such as Mandela Avenue, Agricola and Buxton and even all the way in Linden. They were clad in party colours, face masks and held up placards while practising physical distancing. 

Their messages included: ‘CCJ Must Respect Guyana’s Constitution’, “CEO Guided by our Final Court’; ‘Respect Our Sovereignty’ and more. 

They based their position on Article 177 (4) of the Constitution which states: The Court of Appeal shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to the validity of an election of a President in so far as the question depends upon the qualification of any person for election or the interpretation of this Constitution; and any decision of that Court under this paragraph shall be final.” 

The Guyana Chronicle approached a number of protesters stretched along the Mandela Avenue where persons were present from Constituencies No. 11, 12, 13and 14.Guyana Youth and Student Movement (GYSM) Chairman Ryan Belgrave told the newspaper that the demonstrations were meant as a reminder to Guyanese locally and members of the Caribbean Community {CARlCOM), that Guyana is a sovereign State and demands that it’s Constitution be respected. 

“Th e Caribbean Community, in the form of tbt CCCJ, is presently considering a cast which was brought before ii where, if the CCJ finds some reason to declare that it bas jurisdiction on this matter, we believe that it will be all erosion of our Constitution which basically spells out clearly that, in this particular matter, the Court of Appeal is the final arbiter,” he put forward.

Belgrave said that if jurisdiction is assumed on the matter, this stands not only to affect future cases in Guyana but around the Caribbean.

It is a regional body and everything that it does has some amount of impact on the Region. We in the coalition are not saying as persons have had the knee jerk action that we must get out og CARICOM. No, we understand the necessity for this regional integration movement, we are one of those that pushed for CARICOM to be here to stay but, at the same time, our sovereignty must be respected the GYSM chairman reasoned.

Meanwhile, Councillor of the Georgetown City Council, Denroy Tudor, holding up his own placard, said that the constitution is clear and CCJ cannot play a blind eye to it.

We’re just asking that the CCJ respect the constitution of Guyana Article 177 (4) directly and clearly states as the court of Appeal being the final court on the matter, There is nothing that explicitly states that the CCJ has any jurisdiction concerning the matter that is before the court so it’s quite odd and interesting that the CCJ would entertain any hearing or any submissions from any of the parties concerning this matter, he said .

Further down the line of protesters, the newspaper spoke with Manager of constituency NO> 12, Robert Wayne Mason He said, the law is very clear that the Caribbean court of justice does not have jurisdiction over this matter and if our Appeal Court, which is the highest Court that can make a decision on this matter, said that the Chief Elections Officer of GECOM must pronounce on valid votes … they must respect that.” 

Yvonne Ferguson representing Constituency No. 11 told the newspaper: “The message we’re sendin2 out here today 1s to let the CCJ know we stand strong and they can’t tum back the Appeal Court’s ruling because valid votes are valid Voices.” 

She told the newspaper that she had brought out a group of about 12 persons 10 J)rotest from her Constituency. Questioned whether she felt it was right for her and other APNU+AFC supporters to be out during the COVID-19 restrictions protesting, Ferguson said: 

“We should be allowed LO protest our rights because all of us are adhering to the rules. We have our masks, we even have our hand sanitisers with us and we are distancing six feet apart, so, we are cooperating with the rules.

Similar sentiments were shared by Dexter Forde of Constituency No. 12 who said: “We are all observing the rules as far as it relates to the six feet distancing and we are wearing our masks. Whether we have the right or not, we’re are at a junction right now in our country where we have to stand up and represent our Constitution and whatever consequences come behind, we are out here willing to accept that. We’re not willing to accept a violation of our Constitution, those are bigger stakes.” About an hour or so into the protest action, the police arrived along Mandela Avenue and requested that the community leaders urge their supporters to disperse due to the COVID-I 9 measures in place. 

on July 8, the CCJ will hand down its decision on whether it can assume jurisdiction in a challenge seeking to set aside the ruling of the Court of Ap􀆷al that the election of the President must Mon the basis of” valid vote.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_07_2020

Dear Editor,
GHK Lall is as impertinent, as he has been, and is, generally agnostic. GHK Lall is as illogical, as he is patronising and condescending. And he, is (unwittingly, or otherwise) as much a condoning accessory after the fact to FRAUD, as those who actually perpetrated, or inspired it on March 2, 2020.

He is as self-righteous; as he is vain and delusional. I refer to, and extrapolate these characterizations, from his letter – “President Granger it is time to step down with honour” (SN, Sunday, July 5).

Editor, I say without one jot of doubt, that GHK Lall’s deluge of pitiful exhortations to President Granger, is nothing but a tangled web of deceit, weaved in some vain machination to deceive President Granger, to do the unthinkable: conceded the APNU+AFCs win, to the PPP/C. Rather than call on the fraudsters to concede; GHK Lall self-righteously, appeals to the Godliness of Mr. Granger, reminding him that he was “named after Kings: one of sacred scripture, and the other from literature’s timeless legends” (a veiled reference to the Israelite leader David, and Shakespeare’s King Arthur), in his tirade, that Mr. Granger, the intended victim of the PPP/C thwarted monstrous fraud, must be the one to concede; step down. What temerity; what impertinence; what ingratitude. GHK Lall does not even care that he has piously misinterpreted, and misapprehended the biblical story. God’s favoured David, defeated goliath (the philistine). David did not concede to Goliath’s false image of physical invincibility. Had David done so, the history of the Israelites might have been different. And, there is something of an alluring, instructive and illuminating analogy between the PPP/C seeming electoral invincibility based on false quantitative votes at the imperfect national recount, and Goliath’s defeat, (inspite his seeming physical invincibility) based on the sheer quality of the votes cast for the APNU+AFC.

And, so unfair is GHK Lall, he cannot even smell the stench of his Orwellian illogically, and unfairness towards President Granger. GHK Lall writes “It is time to step down with honour. I say to you today, Mr. President, be different today. I share the pained words of Al Gore in 2000. “I accept the finality of the outcome……… tonight for the sake of our unity as a people, I offer my concession”.

Al Gore (as the Democratic Presidential Candidate) it was, who took the election matter to Court (Gore v. Bush); he did not concede the Election, what he knew he had, on the evidence, won, candidate Al Gore it was, who sought, rightly, a judicial determination of that election hiatus that emerged from the electoral shenanigans in the electoral college system decisive state of Florida (where George H. Bush’s brother Geb was the Governor and had the decisive say as to recount etc.); and, that candidate Al Gore “concession” to George W. Bush (being a ritualistic dogma in the best traditions of American democratic culture) came ONLY AFTER Gore HAD EXHAUSTED ALL HIS JUDICIAL OPTIONS when the US Supreme Court gave a ruling favouring Bush. Paradoxically, it is candidate Ali (not President Granger) who is appealing an unappealable decision to the CCJ – a decision on the evidence of which, Mr. Granger has been constitutionally adviced by the CEO to be the winner, should he declared the winner by the chair of Gecom, and sworn in.
Here with us in Guyana, the 2020 GREs election matter is still sub judice (i.e before the Courts- the CCJ) the judicial options are not yet exhausted and yet, GHK Lall exhorts the President to do what Al Gore only did after exhausting his judicial options – concede! What, and to whom- the candidate who has unconstitutionally appealed to the CCJ!
And just like with Ramkarran, SC, for whom, conveniently, the most relevant and pointed article 177 (2) (b) does not seem to exist at all in his weekly tirade; for GHK Lall, neither the mountain of exposed fraud at the National Recount, nor the Court of Appeal decision in Eslyn David case (clarifying that “votes” in article 177 (2) (b) means VALID VOTES) seems, conveniently, not to exist. Both Ramkarran, SC and Lall are delusional. There is not one iota of evidence pointing to a view that any fraud was on polling day perpetrated, or inspired, by APNU+AFC. None. Notice that the Opposition has never sought to rebut the APNU+AFC narrative of fraud by the PPP/C, by pointing to any verifiable fact from which an inference could reasonably be drawn that on polling day, the APNU+AFC itself perpetrated, or inspired fraud. There is just no such evidence. (They withdrew their contempt action against Region 4 RO-Mingo; because the delivery of an impending judgement favourable to Mingo, was inevitable). So, I ask GHK Lall: who should be conceding-the intended victim of the fraud DAVID ARTHUR GRANGER – or the perpetrators? In all my thirty six (36) years as a qualified lawyer I have never heard of a victim of a crime (and electoral fraud is a crime) being required to show remorse; it is always the perpetrator of the crime. And as to the bait of an election petition being vainly dangled by the likes of Ramkarran, SC and GHK Lall I say this (albeit analogically): there is no law – not the Constitution, not statute, not Common Law – which requires that if you have evidence a competitor has used dope, you must allow him to be presented with the gold medal, and then only afterwards, seek to have him stripped of that gold medal on the basis of doping (Read max Mohamed’s brilliant satire “let the thief finish stealing before you call the cops” GC, Monday, July 6th). En passant, three observations: first, I hope the editor of the SN show some editorial even handedness and publish this letter so that the readers who do not read Guyana Chronicle can have the benefit and advantage of reading this reply to GHK Lall’s letter. Second, GHK Lall is expected to make an equally passionate exhortation to Candidate Ali to do an Al Gore type concession, in the event of Mr. Granger being declared the winner. Third, Ramkarran’s latest heresy “The torment could soon be over” – SN Sunday July 5th. But readers, reflect on this: the linchpin of Ramkarran’s argument is article 162, but there is no mention of the noun – “declaration”, or the verb “declare” in article 162. Those words are to be found only in article 177. A first year law student could argue, convincingly, that the chair’s function/power as to declaration of the President, is found only in article 177, not in article 162. So, is the learned Senior Counsel inviting the Chair to plunge this country into a constitutional crisis by making an impermissible declaration under article 162? Should the Chair, yield to Ramkarran’s heresy and disregard and disapply the plain words of act 177 (2) (b) and make a declaration otherwise than “…… in accordance with the advice of the Chief Election Officer…….” then we are back in the COA for an interpretation of those words (article 177 (6) ouster begins with the plain words of limitation “subject to the provisions of paragraph (4) )]; and pending such interpretation, just as the CCJ did in the Ali/Jagdeo application, the COA would have to grant a STAY of any swearing in of Ali, while it renders its interpretation and finding of the plain and obvious intention of the draftsman/Parliament in the use of such plain and unambiguous words to record the formula on which, and only on which, the Chair’s declaration must happen.

I end with this: article 1 of our Constitution (entrenched by the framers at the deepest level and so it is of the highest constitutional signification and value) says that we are a democratic state. In a democratic State, there should be no President elected on the basis of fraudulent votes; only valid votes. And so, President Granger, as a historian, must know, that history will not absolve him, if as the true winner of the GREs 2020 by valid votes, he were to concede to the false, so called, winner on fraudulent, invalid votes. That, GHK Lall, stripped of all your self righteous rhetoric, is the real, historic, choices.

Regards
Maxwell E. Edwards

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_07_2020

Dear Editor
I HAVE long decided that I would not enter into a media brawl with Freddie Kissoon and I am not about do so now. It is not my style. I have never used my media privilege to assassinate people’s character. I disagree with people’s politics and their opinions without abusing them as persons. Freddie and I have been friends for a long time and have agreed to disagree on a host of political issues. As much as I am alarmed at Freddie’s dogmatic political stance on Guyanese politics over the last year, I respect his right to his opinions and have not even criticised him for it. It has never entered my head to try to diminish him or to question his commitment to the ideals we share.

Freddie, however, has not returned the same compliment to me. He has intimated that I am racist, that I support rigging and that I am no longer a Rodneyite. Recently, he accused me of cussing down the CCJ when I actually said I disagree with those Caribbean countries which have kept out of the CCJ because they fear the court would become a tool in the hands of politicians. When I wrote that systemic racism existed in Guyana, he accused me of racism and of trying to bring an African-American construct to Guyana. Finally, in his July 6 column, he wrote that were I to write a biography of Eusi Kwayana, I would “obfuscate serious wrongdoing Kwayana did to Guyana when he was Sydney King. A few days before he wrote that Kwayana must apologise to Guyanese for the things he did when he was Sydney King. So, it is with great grief that I pen this letter with much love and respect, but with equal disappointment.

Freddie has shown that he cannot be relied on to respect friendships and comradeship. He does not draw lines. He has over the years displayed hatred for WPA leaders, persons with whom he once shared comradeship. He saves his worst beatings for the African-Guyanese WPA leaders. One day he calls them icons, the next day when he disagrees with them on some issue, he uses the privilege of his column to assassinate their characters. He knows that most of them would not reply to him, so he crosses the line into abuse and libel. His recent target has been Eusi Kwayana. He wrote that Kwayana was not a hero to him because he is “secretive” and guarded in what he says. In other words, Freddie denies Kwayana hero status because Kwayana does not engage in political gossip and “buss mouth “ politics– characteristics that Freddie obviously admires.

Well if Kwayana must become a political gossip and a “buss mouth” to earn Freddie’s hero-status, he can keep it. Kwayana is a hero to tens of thousands of Guyanese across generations. His moral standing is acknowledged even by his detractors. The problem is that Freddie thinks he knows Kwayana; he does not know Kwayana. Kwayana is too deep for Freddie’s time. He is not an easy target for Freddie’s tomorrow column. So, he invents a Kwayana. He is also taking the liberty to tell African-Guyanese who their heroes should be. African-Guyanese embraced and protected Freddie when his newfound heroes wanted him expired. Even now when he has betrayed their trust, they are still polite to him. So, he wants to make that love for him his permanent address.

But I know that his obscene attacks on Eusi Kwayana have not gone unnoticed. Many persons have written to me about racial overtones and undertones of his attacks. Yes, Freddie has been abusive to leaders of all races, but he saves the worst for African-Guyanese leaders. His attacks on Kwayana smell different but familiar to us whose fore parents slaved for this country. We know the rancid attacks on us when they go for the conscience of our “race.” Kwayana represents the best gift of political morality to Guyana . It is one thing to criticise leaders, but it is another thing to assassinate their characters. In our fragile environment Freddie is allowing himself to rapidly slip into the mode of racial-attack dog.

Freddie’s anger at Kwayana is that he has not allowed himself to become a “good negro” in the latest quest for ethnic dominance disguised as something else. So yes, Kwayana is my hero because his human qualities are worth admiring. He is not God, but he has done God’s work with distinction. Now Freddie has reintroduced an old PPP narrative about what Kwayana did “ when he was Sydney King.” Freddie, the historian may help us. Yes, I am writing a political biography of Kwayana which will be devoid of political gossip, But I am willing to accommodate Freddie. I am willing to do two things. First, I want Freddie to publicly tell me the political gossip he has on Kwayana when he was Sydney King. Second, I will invite Freddie to come to Buxton at our next Emancipation activities and tell Buxtonians what he knows Kwayana did to Guyanese when he was Sydney King. We would have lots of conkey, mauby and cook-up rice.

Regards
David Hinds

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_07_2020