…says any seizure of jurisdiction by CCJ would be dangerous

ANY decision by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to hear an appeal to the decision of the Court of Appeal, which was made under Article 177 (4) of the Constitution, would be tantamount to an attempted coup, Political Scientist, Dr. David Hinds said on Monday.
The CCJ, on Wednesday, is expected to rule on a case brought by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic’s (PPP/C’s) General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo and Presidential Candidate, Irfaan Ali, challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision that the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b) should be interpreted to mean “more valid votes are cast” with respect to the election of a President. The PPP/C’s application for special leave to appeal was filed before the CCJ, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution states that any decision made by the Court of Appeal under Article 177 (4) is final. The CCJ, on Wednesday, will first have to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, before proceeding any further.

Weighing in on the issue which has since sparked picketing actions across the country with A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) supporters calling for Guyana’s Constitution to be respected, Dr. Hinds said both the Constitution and the Caribbean Court of Justice Act have ousted the jurisdiction of the CCJ.

“The barriers to the CCJ’s legal intervention are expressed in both the Guyana Constitution and the CCJ Act. There is no ambiguity in that regard. Since the CCJ is barred from legally intervening, any intervention would be political,” Dr. Hinds said in a statement.
All lawyers in the case have agreed that the CCJ has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal to a decision made by the Court of Appeal under Article 177 (4), since that Article, in unambiguous language, not only granted the Court of Appeal exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of the elections but it indicates that any decision made thereunder is final. While PPP/C’s lead attorney, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes has acceded to this fact, he has argued that the Court of Appeal did not make a decision under Article 177 (4) because it had no jurisdiction to do so. His position, however, is contrary to the position taken by some of the other leading attorneys in the Region including Antiguan and Barbudan Queen’s Counsel, Justin Simon; Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel, Reginald Armour and John Jeremie; and Guyana’s Attorney General Basil Williams.
On the basis that the Constitution is pellucid on the issue of jurisdiction, Dr. Hinds believes that should the CCJ act contrary to the Constitution – the supreme law of the land, such would amount to a political act.

“Any claim of jurisdiction by the CCJ would be a political act with clear political intentions. It would be a clear attempt to install a party in power against the wishes of half the population and in defiance of constitutional checks. Such action is nothing short of a political coup,” the Political Scientist said.

In support of his position, he pointed to the oral submissions of Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran, who pleaded with the CCJ to take political action to bring an end to the electoral impasse which has stretched for well over four months. But, Dr. Hinds, said the CCJ has no such power under the Constitution of Guyana.

“Should the court seize jurisdiction it would set in train regional and domestic consequences that would further rip apart Guyana’s fragile national compact and CARICOM’s equally shaky relationship with the CCJ,” he said.

The Political Scientist added: “There is already a groundswell of anti-CCJ sentiment among a significant section of the Guyanese populace which would not react kindly to the CCJ seizure of jurisdiction and its potential coup.”

The cries of the Guyanese people for the Constitution to be respected should not be disregarded, he said.

“The regional and international forces’ weaponization of the elections’ impasse in favour of one ethno-political contestant and against the other has driven Guyana to the edge. Any attempt by the CCJ to legalize that action would trigger domestic instability that would in turn re-open all Guyana’s historical wounds,” he warned.

Against that background, the Political Scientist further warned that dark days are ahead if the constitutional power of Guyana’s Appeal’s Court is usurped and the legal-constitutional authority of the Chief Elections Officer is over-run.

“Ever so often foreign forces intervene in domestic feuds with scant regard for the consequences for the local community. After four months of back and forth, the electoral saga must be settled by Guyanese who are the best umpires of their situation. The CCJ should steer clear of any overt or covert entanglement, if it is to preserve its expressed autonomy from the domestic politics of member states,” Dr. Hinds said.

Guyana’s General and Regional Elections, held on March 2, 2020, have been bogged down by allegations of fraud coupled with a number of legal proceedings. It first started in March with allegations that the Region Four Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo, had inflated the number of votes cast in favour of the ruling coalition but an attempt by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to ascertain “a final credible count” by way of a National Recount was met with more allegations of fraud – many of which, were detected in PPP/C strongholds. In fact, the recount, which spanned for 33-days, unearthed close to 5,000 cases of voter impersonation and well over 2,000 irregularities, which the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield, has said, have compromised the electoral process. The PPP/C has argued that GECOM has no authority to act on the allegations of fraud detected during the recount.

The Court of Appeal, in handing down its decision on June 22 in a case brought by North Sophia voter Eslyn David, indicated that the country’s President must be elected on the basis of “valid votes” in accordance with Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution, much to the objection of the PPP/C.

Dr Hinds said that at this stage of the electoral process, Guyanese leaders must emerge from their perches and accept where the process has taken them. “The legal and constitutional buck stopped with the Court of Appeal’s binding ruling. GECOM can only respect that ruling and act on it. It is now for the leaders to act. Both parties gambled for four months and the final outcome is clear. The events of March 4 have been overrun by subsequent events. That is just a plain fact. Calls to annul the elections in the interest of mutual peace were rejected and have also been overtaken by subsequent events,” the Political Scientist said.

The CCJ will hand down its decision virtually on Wednesday at 15:00hrs.

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

Dear Editor

DURING the 23-year reign of terror of the PPP/C, Bharrat Jagdeo was the Minister of Finance for about six years, President for 12 years, and de facto President for for years. During that time, the state was criminalised, corruption was rampant, money laundering was the norm, narco trafficking was permitted, extra-judicial killings were frequent, many government critics were executed or charged with  treason, and shady business deals by tax-dodging companies stifled the development of Guyana. Thus, bribery became the primary means for the Guyanese people to supplement their incomes. In other words, the culture of corruption became normalised during the last 23 years. That culture is still with us today.  The coalition is trying to make Guyana better for all Guyanese.

Mr Jagdeo is a former President receiving extensive emoluments and benefits from all of the hard- working Guyanese taxpayers. He is also the General-Secretary of the PPPC and leader of the opposition. Those two positions conflict with each other. It’s unfair for the people of Guyana to allow the same person holding these two conflicting but important positions, especially now that the PPP/C
has committed massive electoral fraud during the March 2020 elections. When 464,000 people voted and the voting population is about 455,048, that irrefutably indicates fraud. As opposition leader Mr. Jagdeo has corrupted and compromised our electoral system and many people who worked during these elections. He’s even conspiring with local businesses, foreign diplomats and bureaucrats, regional leaders, and even the CCJ to legalise the fraud his party committed during the elections. This treasonous behaviour is not normal anywhere in the world and it is creating uncertainty and instability in our country.

Thus, it is time for Mr. Jagdeo to choose his path forward. He must decide if he wants to be a former President and derive all the benefits of this position from all of the Guyanese people, or an advocate for the PPP/C and its supporters. The government and people of Guyana are giving notice to Mr. Jagdeo that he must formally resign from his position as general-secretary of all active political parties and failing to do so, will result in the cessation of payments and benefits to him as a former President. He will be able to continue as the partisan leader of the opposition and be treated as such. Guyana’s taxpayers will no longer be subsidising Mr. Jagdeo’s treasonous activities.

Regards
R. Chung-A-On

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

– PM Nagamootoo says

“GUYANA’s sovereignty is on trial” was how Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo commented on the hearings before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) of an appeal from a decision of the Guyana Court of Appeal.

In his weekend column, My Turn, the Prime Minister described, as spurious, the petition by the political opposition for leave to file an appeal against the interpretation by the Court of Appeal of the Guyana Constitution, to the effect that votes cast in an election of a president means “valid votes”, and nothing else.

He said that it was strongly contended that the CCJ cannot oust the power of the Guyana Court of Appeal to make a final decision on a limited or narrow set of issues.

Nagamootoo who is a veteran politician, journalist and attorney said that the Guyanese people are not without a righteous cause, and any outcome that disregards the country’s sovereignty “could severely impact our Caribbean family of nations”.

He noted that during the preliminary hearing as to whether the CCJ has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, authoritative statements were made advising that the Caribbean court should take a hands-off position.

Mr. Justice Winston Anderson, a member of the CCJ’s panel of judges, but who is not on the Bench in the current matter, was quoted as saying: “If issues cannot be appealed to the CCJ, the CCJ cannot consider them, and if the CCJ cannot consider them, then they cannot be included in the building blocks of the court’s jurisdiction. It is that simple…But there is very little, if anything, that the CCJ can do to change this situation…”

It was contended that the jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice emerged from a treaty establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice with Senior Counsel Mr. Reginald Armour submitting that “treaties are entered into as a matter of the sovereignty of nations”.
Now, it seems, that Guyana’s sovereignty is on trial, the My Turn article concluded.
The Prime Minister accused the PPP of trying to weaponize the court in its “desperate all-or-nothing war”. He alluded to negative headlines amounting to terrorist threats against top elections officials of sanctions and imprisonment which, he said, is “a cowardly attempt to break their will and to compromise them”.

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

– for the mudslinging of fabricated propaganda

Dear Editor,

CAN someone explain why is Mercury Public Relations LLC disseminating unofficial election results to various members of the American government? Isn’t this a form of electoral misconduct on behalf of the PPP?

This is the link: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fara2.opensecrets.org/6170-Informational-Materials-20200307-311.pdf

Open Secrets have released documents which disclose that Mercury LLC is behind the scenes to side with the PPP and use propaganda against the current government. Mercury is being paid to influence the elections. This doesn’t look like a business promotional campaign; it reeks of the putrid smell of foreign meddling!

Correspondence has shown that Mercury is liaising with members of the OAS and United States government to vouch for the PPP, while using excuses such as: “Guyana is near Venezuela” to vilify the current government. This makes me wonder if journalists are being compromised by Mercury LLC; whether they are being bribed or being indirectly influenced by the propaganda. One baffling revelation is that of the ramblings of Mr. Freddie Kissoon. He is a journalist who suffered physical violence under the PPP during a wave of assassinations of political dissidents.

But recently, Mr. Kissoon has lamented that those who resist the lies, propaganda and bullying from the PPP do not love their country. He has also written in a way more angrier tone in his past articles, though no one in the current government has attacked him or his family. Wouldn’t it be foolish to assume that one should love Guyana by way of the PPP “democracy” when Bharrat Jagdeo is pleading for international sanctions? Isn’t that an oxymoron of stratospheric proportions?

People who love Guyana should be vigilant against the lies, propaganda and falsehoods that the PPP is doling out through Mercury Public Affairs LLC. There might be a political scandal in the making, and the PPP might be shown as the Emperor with no clothes when their sweet tides of lies evaporate in the heat of public scrutiny of God-fearing people. Shame on the PPP and Mercury Public Affairs for the mudslinging of fabricated propaganda!

Regards,
Riaz Hamid

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_07_2020

The Guyana Court of Appeal on Sunday banded down its ruling in the cast brought by Ulita Moore regarding the decision to invite CARICOM to participate in a re­count of the ballots cast at the March 2, 2020 elections. Understandably, the parties involved have all spun the ruling to suit their political agendas. However, in the final analysis, it was a blow to the PPP’s attempt to i11terfere in GECOM’s conduct of the election. That party has tried its utmost to commandeer the process by smearing GECOM officials, and, on one occasion, went as far as storming the Agency’s command centre. The court bas made it abun­dantly clear that only GECOM can supervise a recount of the votes; that to do otherwise would be a violation of tbt Constitution. 

Now that the court has ruled, and from all indications has paved the way for a recount to be supervised by GECOM, President Granger has been vindicated. First, it was he who has always contended that GECOM is an independent agency whose operations he stoutly refused to interfere with. From as far back as the fight over the No-Confidence Vote, the Presi­dent refused to bow to pressures from the PPP and its acolytes to impose an election date on GE COM. He stood his ground, even as he was called all kinds of nasty names, and charged with operating a dictatorship. Now, the court has proven that he was correct in taking that stance. 

Second, -once the PPP moved to the courts to challenge GECOM’s handling of the tabulation of the votes, Mr. Granger took the position that he would not circumvent the legal process. He repeatedly said that the couns must decide, and vowed to obey their findings and rulings. Even as he expressed his disappointment that the recount did not get off the ground, he held firm to the position that he would wait for the court to have its say. This attitude was quite the opposite of the PPP’s. While the PPP has been selective in its respect for the court’s rulings, the President and his. ‘Coalition’ have been respectful of that co-equal branch of government, even when decisions have gone against them. This is indeed an example to be em­ulated, whereby the judicial branch of government is granted the respect it deserves. President Granger has been a tower of strength in that regard. 

We pause to lend our voice to saluting the cours for their conduct these pa5I few weeks. And while we do not agree with some of the rulings, our respect for the professionalism of our judiciary is profound. No democratic society could be sus­tained without an independe1111 judiciary, free from the tyranny of the executive, and pressures from other political forces. From the No- Confidence Vote to the present, the judiciary has had to fend off repeated attempts by the PPP to pressure it into becoming entangled with partisan politics. In the end, the Guyanese legal system is intact, and our country is stable, amidst attempts at destabilisation. 

The recent ruling by tl1e Appeal Court regarding CAR­ICOM ‘s participation has caused more than passing debate. There is some confusion over the precise role of the CARICOM tean1 which came to Guyana when the recount wa5 first agreed. Even Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Dr. Keith Rowley has weighed in on the matter. He correctly argued that CARICOM never understood its role, in super­visory tern1s. The team, according to him, was in Guyana as scrutineers rather than as supervisors. 

This is precisely tbt position of Preside ot Granger, the author of the CARICOM initiative, and a staunch support­er of GECOM’s independence. He could not have invited CARICOM to usurp GECOM’s authority after being the chief defender of the independence of the latter. The invitation to CARICOM was born of a deep desire to prove to tilt world that the ‘Coalition’ had nothing to hide , and was confident that it had prevailed at the elections. It was never meant to take away GECOM’s constitutional mandate; but again, the mischief was planted by the PPP. It was they who, as part of their plan to undermine GECOM, told the world that CARICOM had come to Guyana to count the votes and declare the PPP the winner. The Court of Appal bas correctly rebuked them. The recklessness of the PPP continues to embarrass Guyana. Their fabrications and downright lies are being exposed daily. AJJ their attempts to smear the reputation of President Granger have failed miserably. This latest ruling by the Court of Appeal bas vindicated the president; his respect for the rule of law and the autonomy and independence of our constitutional bodies remains a central plank of bis approach to statecraft.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_07_2020

IT is over one month since Guyanese took to the polls on March 2, to cast their ballots in the 2020 General and Regional Elections. However, the country has not yet had its overall elections results declared and no new administration has been sworn in.

The elections were set into motion by the passage of a no-confidence motion against the current government back in December 2018. Following several court battles in relation to the valid passage of the motion, the same was upheld by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ); the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) indicated the time frame of its readiness for the elections to the President and the President set the date.

While there were minor disputes just days before E-Day regarding the location of polling places, the elections were hailed by all stakeholders involved as largely “free and fair”. “GECOM has delivered free, fair and credible elections,” GECOM Chair, Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh said at a press conference following the close of poll.

GECOM’s first set of results for the various Regions began to trickle in by March 3, 2020. Eligible voters came from an Official List of Electors (OLE) of 660,998 persons, while there were 2,339 polling stations across the country. By March 4, more Returning Officers (ROs) of the various regions began to declare their total results but, on the said day, things took a turn for the worse when Region Four RO, Clairmont Mingo, fell ill at the Region Four RO Office at High and Hadfield Streets.

The office is also home to GECOM’s Command Centre and Mingo was seen being rushed to the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC) in an ambulance. The same day that he was hospitilised, efforts were made to restart the process more than once, but a summarised spreadsheet being used by a GECOM Clerk to tally the region’s Statements of Poll (SoPs), did not find favour with several opposition political parties.

There were complaints that discrepancies were noticed during the said process and although efforts seemed positive by the commission to restart the tabulation process, the agreement fell apart. Region Four holds 879 polling stations and 285,618 electors. It is still the deciding factor for which party wins the election. On March 5, supporters of the coalition government celebrated when Mingo returned to the centre and subsequently declared the results which showed that the current administration had won the region. If the overall declaration was to be made by the commission, it would mean that the government would remain in power. However, the opposition was not having this, as they believed that the tabulation process was not legitimate and done according to law.
That same afternoon, People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Executive and Attorney-at-Law, Anil Nandlall, secured three injunctions in the High Court to block the release and declaration of the results for the general and regional elections.

Pandemonium broke out at the command entre in the evening when agents attached to the PPP/C and smaller opposition parties clashed with the police in attempts to invade an office in which Singh was in. Several political party affiliates were taken into custody. Election Observer Missions (EOMs) agreed that the process of the counting of the SoPs was flawed as Chair of The Carter Center Mission to Guyana, Jason Carter said: “The fact that there was no transparency of the results that were ultimately announced today means that those results lack credibility.” The next day, PPP/C supporters participated in violent protests in stronghold regions of the country which resulted in attacks on police personnel, injury to school children, terrorism against commuters, arson of state property, looting and widespread intimidation of government supporters.

SEVERAL ARRESTED

Several persons were arrested, some injured and one man has died following the protests. These actions, along with the acts which took place at the command centre, have since been roundly condemned. When the matters were taken to the High Court, Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire, ruled on March 8 that the court has jurisdiction to hear the application intended to block the declaration of the results for the general and regional Elections until the Region Four votes were completely verified.

COURT RULING 

On March 11, she ruled that the Mingo erred during the process of tabulating the SoPs; nullified the declaration made on March 5, and ordered that the process recommence. On March 13, the votes for District Four were declared by the RO but the PPP/C, for a second time, alleged that the electoral process was flawed. The next day, lifting the spirits of many Guyanese, it was announced that CARICOM would field an independent high-level team to the country to observe a recount of all votes cast in the general and regional elections as agreed upon by President David Granger and Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo.

Plans went fairly well up until March 17, when the CARICOM team pulled out from Guyana after they requested that the agreement of the leaders be solidified by an order but Chief Parliamentary Counsel advised GECOM that such an order would be in contravention of the Constitution of Guyana and the Representation of the People Act.

Around the same period that the commission was receiving this advice, an interim injunction was moved to the High Court to prevent the recount on the basis that final declarations were made by the ROs from all 10 regions and those declarations are final. On March 27, High Court Judge, Franklin Holder, ruled that the High Court had jurisdiction to review the actions of GECOM in light of allegations that it may have acted outside of its constitutional powers when it opted to facilitate a national recount under the supervision of the high-level CARICOM team.

However, on March 31, the Full Court overruled a decision by Judge Holder, and said that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the aforementioned case on the grounds that the issues raised could only be dealt with by way of an elections petition.

The matter was then taken to the Appeal Court which allowed partial jurisdiction against the Full Court’s decision to challenge the decision of GECOM to conduct a national recount under the supervision of the CARICOM. It stated that any agreement that usurps the powers of GECOM to supervise elections in Guyana is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, GECOM deliberated on the court’s ruling and has decided that a recount will take place in the order of Regions 1-10. Following consequential orders, it hopes to act on a detailed plan which is to be presented at the commission’s next meeting on Wednesday, March 8, 2020.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_07_2020

…modalities worked out

GUYANA’s Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield has been given less than 48 hours to draft an operational plan that will guide the execution of a National Recount of all the votes cast at the March 2 General and Regional Elections. That plan will be the subject of major discussion when the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) meets on Wednesday.
The Chief Elections Officer was given clearance to draft the plan on Monday after receiving much needed clarity from the Elections Commission on the National Recount.

Moments after exiting the meeting, which was led by Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh – the Chair of GECOM, Government nominated Commissioner Vincent Alexander disclosed that the modalities of the recount were discussed extensively with the intention of providing clarity to the Chief Elections Officer. Last Friday, when GECOM took the decision to proceed with the National Recount, Lowenfield had asked for clear directions on the process to be employed. According to Alexander, those clear directions were provided, and it is expected that a draft operational plan would be placed before the Commission on Wednesday at 11:00hrs for its consideration.

Opposition nominated Commissioner Sase Gunraj confirmed that the Commission addressed the issues raised by Lowenfield – the majority being operational in nature. “It took us quite a while to go through each and every one of them to provide guidance in as explicit a manner that we can to him so that he can operationalize the process by providing a plan to us,” Gunraj told reporters.

According to him, some of the core issues included the conduct of the recount, the extent at which it will be carried out and the role of the Commission in resolution of disputes arising out of the process. The Commission, he noted, also considered the reporting mechanism that would be employed following the tabulation of votes at the level of the Polling Station. In normal circumstances, information generated is recorded on Statements of Poll (SOP) following the tabulation of the ballots, however, in this case, the information would be recorded on a document with features similar to that of a SOP.

“All of those things, we went through; each and every one of the concerns the CEO had and like I said, attempted as best as we could to provide as much clarity to him,” Gunraj said.
It is Gunraj’s hope that the draft operational plan will be available to the Election Commissioners ahead of the Wednesday’s meeting, so that they could effectively discuss it when they meet.

At this stage, it is unclear when GECOM will commence the recount, however, last Friday it indicated that the recount of the votes cast would be conducted in chronological order, that is, from Region One to Region 10.

It is also unclear whether GECOM will use the same set of Returning Officers, who had played leading roles at the end of the polls, given the controversy that surrounded the Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo. It was under Mingo’s watch the tabulation of Statements of Poll for District 4 went downhill. After the process was repeatedly disrupted by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic and a number of other small parties, Mingo had moved to declare the votes cast in favor of each List of Candidate for his Electoral District on March 5 but by March 11, the High Court ruled that he had breached Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act. He was ordered to tabulate the SOPs in the presence of persons entitled to be there, such as party agents and observers, and though he proceeded to adhere to the ruling of the Court, his second declaration, on March 13, was still deemed to be flawed by the PPP/C and others.

According to Gunraj, a proposal is now on the table to have the Region 4 Returning Officer removed from the process. “It is a proposal, it has not reached finality. As you are aware as well, it was only in District Four that issues arose, in the other nine Districts there were no issues that were reported to us, that would warrant the request for the removal of those persons,” Gunraj told reporters.

The Elections Commission took a decision to proceed with the National Recount after the Full Court discharged four injunctions, which had initially blocked GECOM from executing its plan.

The National Recount, Justice Singh has said is in keeping with Article 162 (1) (b) of the Constitution of Guyana, which mandates the Commission to “take such action as appear to it necessary or expedient to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with the provisions of the Constitution.”

Ahead of the decision, Justice Singh told the Commissioners that she was in no position to backpedal on her commitment to the High Court to facilitate the national recount. “…Justice Claudette Singh explained that she would be unable to renege on her undertaking to the Chief Justice [Roxane George-Wiltshire] to facilitate a recount of the votes cast in the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections,” GECOM’s Public Relations Officer (PRO) Yolanda Ward had explained in a statement on Friday.

The GECOM Chair had given an undertaking to the High Court on March 13 after the PPP/C, through its associate, had filed contempt proceedings against GECOM over an alleged failure by the Region 4 Returning Officer to tabulate the votes cast in his Electoral District in accordance with Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act. This case was shelved, and as such no Contempt Order was issued.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_07_2020

By Gary

(Retired Rear Admiral and Attorney)

Editor, having regard to the recent decisions of the Guyana Full Court and the Guyana Court of Appeal in the Ulita Moore matter, GECOM ought not to rely on its own decision to do a national recount. To be clear, the writer accepts that part of the Court of Appeal’s decision which held that it was unlawful for GECOM to have decided to do a national recount under the “supervision” of CARICOM. We therefore speak here of a national recount simpliciter. And for the purpose of this submission, a national recount is what remains from GECOM’s unlawful decision to conduct a supervised national recount. We also observe that the Court of Appeal, in holding, in part, for Ulita Moore, separated the question of jurisdiction from that of constitutionality. It is in that vein that we render to further examination GECOM’s decision to do a national recount since it touches on its constitutionality as argued by Ulita Moore. Consequently, we are of the view that Ulita Moore enjoys an unfettered constitutional right to challenge the constitutionality of GECOM’s decision and, more particularly, that her matter be heard expeditiously. To date, the question of the constitutionality of GECOM’s decision on a national recount has not been heard. Both the Full Court and the Court of Appeal ruled that that is a matter for an elections petition. Juxtaposing the decision of these two courts with Ulita Moore’s right to be heard and GECOM’s decision to do a national recount present a quagmire for GECOM that becomes readily apparent.

Recount/ Count

Editor, there are many reasons why GECOM should not rely on its own decision to do a national recount. In the first instance, the Court of Appeal’s decision has justified the nationally held position by HE the President to abide by the constitution and the rulings of the court. In this regard, it is important that GECOM’s does not act precipitously thereby preventing current and future court proceedings. In other words, GECOM must act in a manner that does not stymie the elections petition process which the courts have supervision over in order to bring finality to elections challenges. As alluded above, the matter whether or not GECOM acted constitutionally in agreeing to conduct a national recount is still to be heard and therefore not determined. Consequently, GECOM ought not to rely on its decision to conduct a national recount of any or all electoral districts since its constitutionality is yet to be determined via an elections petition. In any event, a national recount is properly done during an elections petition, having regard to the fact that this matter has moved beyond whether the RO of Electoral District #4 followed Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act in his tabulation, to a dispute of the entire 2020 Elections. For the avoidance of doubt, GECOM has a completed tabulated result that shows the APNU+AFC as victorious. This is disputed by the PPP. In this regard, the Full Court and the Court of Appeal have ruled that Art 163 (1) (b) (i) and (ii) of the Constitution of Guyana provides for disputed elections to be settled by an Elections Petition.

Secondly, GECOM’s supervisory and intervention powers under Article 162 of the Constitution to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with elections matters must be seen as operating within the ambit of the law, in particular, the Representation of the People Act where there is provision for counts and recounts and which have already been statutorily performed by the various Returning Officers. To conduct a recount under the Representation of the People Act is to do a thing that has already been done. To attempt to conduct a recount outside of the Representation of the People Act is to act unconstitutionally. This is quite different from an elections audit which was done in the post 1997 National and General Elections and examined in the elections petition filed by Esther Perreira. We submit, that notwithstanding the good intentions of parties, in this case, HE the President, CARICOM and GECOM, parties cannot come together and intentionally or unintentionally breach the law.

Thirdly, a similar circumstance was examined in the Ether Perreira case of 1998 where that court vitiated the 1997 Guyana General and Regional Elections. Madame Justice Claudette Singh, as she then was, held, on the issue of the effect of Act 22 of 1977 which introduced the concept of “no card, no vote”, held that “[t]here is nothing wrong with Parliament enacting such legislation, but any such law ought not to be inconsistent with the Constitution”. The distinguished Judge went on the hold that “…no political party can arrogate unto itself the power to barter away … the constitutional rights of the electorate”. Similarly, we now have a case of “no national recount, no declaration”. In this regard, we submit that the political parties, CARICOM and GECOM cannot come together and breach the constitution of Guyana. Keep in mind that a recount is grounded in law as per the Representation of the People Act and is a procedure governed by the Returning Officer. To be clear, a national recount, yes, but via an elections petition.

Would GECOM deny Ulita Moore her right to challenge its decision in an elections petition?

Editor, how then would Ulita Moore be able to have her matter heard via an elections petition as ruled by both the Guyana Full Court and the Guyana Court of Appeal? For there to be an action for an elections petition there must be a completion of the electoral process. For there to be a completion of the electoral process there must be a declaration of the winner and a declaration and swearing in of the President. In support of this statutory process, the Full Court ruled that “The elections process must swiftly and efficiently take its course so as to enable elections results to be declared”. To be clear, we submit that in order for Ulita Moore to be able to have her matter heard GECOM must complete the electoral process. Since speed and finality are of the essence, the Full Court also held that “Finality does not mean lawfulness. Lawfulness can always be challenged by way of an Elections Petition”. Swift completion of the electoral process is therefore the desire of both courts. This is now a matter for GECOM to deal with expeditiously.

For the avoidance of doubt, GECOM has a completed tabulated result that shows the APNU+AFC as victorious. This is disputed by the PPP. In this regard, the Full Court has ruled that Art 163 (1) (b) (i) and (ii) of the Constitution of Guyana provides for disputed elections to be settled by an elections petition. Further, Ulita Moore is not disputing the 2020 elections results. She is challenging GECOM to declare that her political party won the 2020 elections and therefore no recount is necessary. Herein lies the quagmire. In order for Ulita Moore to file an elections petition GECOM must complete the electoral process by declaring a winner. And in order for GECOM to proceed with a national recount, it has to deny Ulita Moore her constitutional right to have her matter heard before it operationalises that decision. We submit that, in the interests of justice, GECOM needs to receive the CEO’s report and complete the elections process now. To rely simply on an undertaking given to do a national recount as a reason for not considering that report falls short of any statutory foundation since such an undertaking has none in law.

To be clear, GECOM cannot perfect its decision to do a national recount by actually doing a national recount and then pave the way for Ulita Moore to challenge afterwards. Finally, on this point, for GECOM to conduct a national recount and possibly introduce different or the said results would create further dispute, exacerbate the post-election tension and ultimately such matters would still require the hearing of elections petition in the High Court to resolve them. Any national recount by GECOM would be precipitous.

PPP Double Speak and Open Threats

It is clear from earlier and more recent uttering from the PPP that nothing short of a decision that results in a victory for it would suffice. The PPP’s most recent attack on GECOM came from its leader a few days ago when he said that his Party doesn’t trust GECOM. The PPP is also saying that they do not trust the statutorily appointed RO of Region 4 and now demands that he not be part of GECOM’s electoral process. Editor, how more sinister can the PPP become? GECOM needs to stand its ground and reject, in a public manner, these inferences and open attack on its integrity as a constitutional body. Having regard to the Guyana Court of Appeal’s decision, how can GECOM even conduct a national recount when the Leader of the PPP has declared a no confidence in GECOM? The PPP doesn’t want a national recount. The PPP wants to set the stage for national electoral confusion. We remind our readers that when refer to a national recount, we see such a recount occurring in a post-election petition. The nation has, on record, HE President Granger declaring on numerous occasions that he will abide by the decisions of the Courts. We are yet to hear such an undertaking coming from the Leader of the Opposition.

Finally, the decisions of the Full Court and the Court of Appeal pave the way for GECOM to expeditiously complete the 2020 Elections process explained above and leave all other matters for an Elections Petition.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_07_2020

–GECOM Commissioners say

THE Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) on Monday reportedly agreed that it would be prudent to have the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) involved in the planned National Recount, not to supervise as previously approved, but to validate the process.
On March 17, 2020, the Elections Commission approved a CARICOM- supervised recount, but the Court of Appeal on Sunday made it clear that it would be unconstitutional for CARICOM or any other authority, besides GECOM, to supervise any aspect of the Elections in Guyana. Prior to that ruling, GECOM on Friday agreed to proceed with the recount, but under the supervision of the Elections Commission.

‘A HIGH PREFERENCE’

At the conclusion of Monday’s meeting of the Commission, Government-nominated Commissioner, Vincent Alexander told reporters that the Elections Commission has a high preference for CARICOM’s involvement in the electoral process. “We have decided today that our preference, in terms of an external body to give some validation, is CARICOM,” Alexander told reporters.
According to him, the CARICOM arrangement would differ significantly from the observatory roles of Elections Observation Missions. “The others were never for validation; the others were observers. CARICOM came into the process with a particular role,” Alexander said.
He posited that it is likely that GECOM will soon extend a formal invitation to CARICOM.
Opposition-nominated Commissioner Sase Gunraj expressed similar expectations.
“I have no doubt that in very short order, an approach will be made to the CARICOM Secretary-General, with the view of reengaging that team. But I believe that we need to have some sort of finality, from our end, as to when we will begin, and so on, to pass that information,” Gunraj told reporters.

BEGS TO DIFFER
Gunraj, however, disagreed with the Appeal Court’s interpretation that the agreement between President Granger and Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo would have led to CARICOM supervising the recount. According to him, the word “supervised” was used loosely. “It was always that they will observe the process, in keeping with the laws and the Constitution of Guyana,” he emphasised.
And while Alexander did not address the issue of the presence of observers during the recount, Gunraj said that, in principle, the Commission agreed that observers would be present. According to Gunraj, the Commission also agreed to issue a statement, inviting observers to signal their willingness to participate in the process. This, he said, is important, given the prevailing challenges posed as a result of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19).
On the instruction of CARICOM Chairman, Barbados’ Prime Minister Mia Mottley, a high-level CARICOM team had arrived in Guyana on March 15 to supervise a planned national recounting of the ballots cast in the March 2 Elections, which had stemmed from an agreement with the President and Opposition Leader.

STUMBLING BLOCKS

However, on March 17, 2020, the high-level team withdrew from the process, after it was beset by several stumbling blocks. A private citizen, Ulita Moore, secured four injunctions from the High Court to block the recount, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Added to that, though President Granger and the Opposition Leader had signed an Aide Memoire, agreeing to the recount, CARICOM had requested a legal cover, in the form of a gazzetted order, however, Guyana’s Chief Parliamentary Counsel, Charles Fung-a-Fat advised against it. According to him, to do so would be to supersede electoral laws, and infringe on the rights of electors.

The independent high-level team was chaired by former Attorney-General and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Dominica, Ms. Francine Baron, and comprised former Minister of Finance of Grenada, Mr. Anthony Boatswain; Senior Lecturer in the Department of Government of UWI Ms. Cynthia Barrow-Giles; Chief Electoral Officer of Barbados Ms. Angela Taylor; and Chief Elections Officer of Trinidad and Tobago Ms. Fern Narcis-Scope.

Weighing in on the issue on Monday, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Dr. Keith Rowley, while expressing deep concern over the electoral challenges facing Guyana, said CARICOM stands committed to assist GECOM in the execution of the recount. He had formed part of a team of CARICOM Heads of Government that had met with President Granger and the Opposition Leader in the lead up to the agreement, after the tabulation of the votes in District Four had encountered challenges.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_07_2020

NOTWITHSTANDING Sunday’s court ruling in relation to the role of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) in supervising a recount of the ballots cast in the March 2, 2020 regional and general elections, Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley of Trinidad and Tobago says the regional body is ready to assist in the process, once called upon.

Rowley, along with chair of CARICOM, Prime Minister Mia Mottley of Barbados, Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Ministers Roosevelt Skerrit of Dominica, and Keith Mitchell of Grenada, visited Guyana several days after the March 2, 2020 elections, with the aim of assisting at the arrival at a resolution to the impasse that resulted from the polls.

Thereafter, an agreement was signed by President David Granger and Opposition Leader as well as CARICOM Secretary General, Irwin La Rocque for a recount of the ballots cast at the polls. A technical team from CARICOM arrived to supervise the process; however, based on legal advice the team’s visit was cut-short. In addition, the process was hampered by an injunction which was filed in the courts, blocking the recount.

Rowley told the Trinidad media, on Monday, that in the agreement signed between Jagdeo and President Granger and the Secretary General of CARICOM, there was “opportunity for misrepresentation” and according to him, persons seized that opportunity.

Rowley said that the wording of the document speaks “loosely” about CARICOM supervising the recount process. He said in the second-to-last paragraph of the document, it says that the role of the high-level team that the two leaders requested to visit Guyana would be to supervise the recount under the auspices of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and would not engage themselves in the actual counting of ballots. Their presence was to ensure that the recount is done in a free, fair and transparent manner.

“It specifically said that CARICOM would not engage themselves in the actual counting of ballots,” he said, noting that because the word “supervise” was used in the document, while in the court it was argued that CARICOM had acted illegally.

He said CARICOM is looking on and will await the outcome of any decision the electoral body here makes. He said that if the authorities here request assistance from CARICOM, that presence should be provided and he noted that it would be the same technical team which was here earlier in March.

He said he has not heard any request for any CARICOM’s presence, as he reiterated that the team will in no way interfere with the counting of ballots.
The results of the elections have been hooked-up in the courts with a ruling by the Court of Appeal on Sunday, placing CARICOM’s role on the back-burner.

“Any arrangement or agreement to relinquish supervision of any aspect of the elections, whether the recount or any other aspect – any arrangement to relinquish that supervision and authority – would be an unlawful arrangement. GECOM must at all times remain the body constitutionally mandated to supervise [elections],” Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory said as she handed down the ruling on Sunday in the in the case brought by Ulita Moore, challenging the decision of GECOM to conduct a national recount under the supervision of the CARICOM.

GECOM has made a decision for a recount of the ballots cast in all 10 administrative regions, in a chronological order. Prior to the departure of the high-level CARICOM team, GECOM commissioner, Vincent Alexander, had noted that the team had not given up on the process and was willing to return if called up. GECOM is set to iron out the modalities relevant to the recount process.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_07_2020