…AG urges GECOM to honour its gazetted recount order
–says PPP/C attempt to skip processes should be frowned on

IF the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is to deliver credible elections results to the nation, it must not stray from the binding Order, which outlines the actions it must take prior to making its final declaration.

Attorney General, Basil Williams, made it clear today that though the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) has encouraged the disregard of the said Oder throughout the recount process, it is nonetheless incumbent that the commission meets the legal requirements gazetted on May 4, 2020.

The gazetted Order paved the way for the national recount to commence May 6, 2020 and under the watchful eyes of scrutineers drawn from the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). The AG reminded that it was an agreement forged between President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo, that cleared the way for the national recount and that the said agreement — with clear outlines in keeping with the law — led to crafting of the Order.

It was signed by GECOM Chairperson, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, and made by the Elections Commission, pursuant to its powers under Article 162 of the Constitution and Section 22 of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act. However, Williams said that it is disappointing that the PPP/C and GECOM Opposition-nominated Commissioners have now chosen to disregard the very Oder they played key roles in crafting.

“The Leader of the Opposition was a signatory to the Caribbean Community initiative. PPP/C aligned Commissioner, Sase Gunraj, boasted that he drafted the Order, which now governs the recount. Gunraj visited the Attorney General’s Chambers with a GECOM delegation to meet with the Chief Parliamentary Counsel on the said Order and delayed the meeting saying he expected Anil Nandlall to attend. Any reasonable person could conclude that all these political actors knew the purpose of the Order that was gazetted by GECOM to pursue the total recount of the votes cast at the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections,” the Attorney General stated.

Contrariwise, he said at the PPP/C has sought to undermine the CARICOM initiative in several ways, such as attempting to force the elections process, inclusive of the recount process, into an April 30, 2020 deadline.

The AG noted that this was done to coincide with the constitutional requirement of a dissolved Parliament being convened not later than four months after its dissolution which the PPP/C itself has argued in the courts was not mandatory as one could exceed the said limit. Additionally, though previously politicising the position of others that GECOM needed more time to complete the recount than 25 days, PPP/C-nominated commissioners later had no option but to agree to an extension of the timeline by some two weeks.

The AG also pointed out that the opposition claimed that GECOM cannot resolve the discrepancies and anomalies which marred the balloting despite the Order saying they could. He also noted that the opposition claimed that the recount was merely numerical despite the Order stating that both the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) and the commission have to assess the discrepancies revealed in the Observation Report Forms.

On the matter of irregularities highlighted by APNU+AFC Agents during the recount, Williams said that further deception was pursued by the PPP/C when it claimed on countless occasions that GECOM could not consider the death certificates laid over as proof that persons voted in the place of deceased persons.

The party claimed that it was an offence for a member of the public to possess a death certificate of a deceased person. Back in May, the AG debunked this claim by pointing to the Law which states that every Guyanese has the right to access official documents in the possession of public authorities. “All of these abominations, when any lawyer worth his salt would know that, as a constitutional commission, the decision-making processes of GECOM would be of a quasi-judicial nature,” he told the newspaper on Tuesday.

Furthermore, he explained that Order No. 60 of 2020, made under Article 162 (1) (b) of the Constitution and Section 22 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 2000, is subsidiary legislation having being published in the Official Gazette and therefore a law of the land binding on GECOM and all political parties who contested the said GRE.

He reminded that though the PPP/C has “publicly and prematurely” celebrated victory that they have won the elections, they are well aware that the recount process is takes up four stages: recount of ballots; the report of the recount; the review of the report by GECOM and the declaration of the results. The AG stated: “[The PPP/C is also] unconcerned that the CARICOM Scrutinising Team has to submit their report directly to the commission at stage three under paragraph 13. They also set their faces against the credibility assessment that is required to be done by the CEO, the chairwoman and the commission, that can impact the efficacy of the ballot recount. It is incumbent on GECOM to stay the course and be true to its Order and not be encouraged to turn its back on its own Order.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-10-2020

Dear Editor,

It is evident that the CARICOM Mission’s observation on the entire recount process of the March 02 national and regional elections in Guyana will be a most key determinate as to bow these elections were really bald.

To further understand their role in this most significant political occurrence at this seminal juncture of the nation’s history, one must be reminded of the significant description, given by the Community’s ambassador to the Organisation of American States(OAS), that the three-person validating team is “THE MOST LEGITIMA TE INTERLOCUTORS in the recount process.

One certainly interprets this to mean that its requested presence, of course supported by the entire Community, gives it pre-eminence; and that it stands tall above every other foreign presence. It is the HEART AND BACK BONE OF THE RECOUNT PROCESS.

Therefore, we understand that its importance and role in the final determination of  the question oftl1e validity of the Recount of the March 02  voles is no mere coincidence, but a solemn undertaking which will also place the moral credibility of the Caribbean Community and all that it represents on trial.

One is not here seeking to advise, in any way, now the Team must conduct its work; however, it will be remiss of me not to remind the group of a few things.

First, it is fully aware of the interference of e xtemal players, ,n all guises, in alliance with maternal elements, in our interval affairs m a manner that has caused more harin than good. It would also be aware that those forces, have sought to exert pressures, for a certain desirable outcome, via a consistent attack on our sovereignty, most of al I on the Executive, and on the electoral commission GOECOM.

Second, it is these elements of external intrusion, of which the CARJCOM group must be wary-, and not fall prey to its variable pressures. For it must remember, that in its current mission and undertaking, that its first responsibility must be to the people of Guyana, who will have to live with the consequences of whatever decision(s) it has made. And in underlining this fact, this group needs not be reminded that its morality must be about truth, which it must satisfy. This means applying this requirement to the actual manifestation of what has been endemic in all of the electoral districts, as: originating from the ballot boxes. It must not, in any way seek to gloss over, or obfuscate, the very troubling and alarming findings which it would have been encountering on each day of its: presence at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC) work-stations. 

Thirdly, in carrying out this function, the CARICOM Mission is hereby remind-· ed that its pronouncement must only satisfy ITS REA- SONS FOR BETNG HERE: TO VALIDATE THE RE-· COUNT PROCESS, IN TERMS OF ITS CRED- IBILITY ON HIE BAL- LOTS CAST -HOW THIS HAD BEEN DONE. nus, IT MUST PRONOUNCE ON IN AN OBJECTIVE AND IMPARTIAL MANNER, AND NOT TO THE WHIMS AND FANCIES OF ANY EXTERNAL POWER(S). 

Its findings, if done in. the spirit and letter of their mandate in the proper re- quired manner, can benefit this country and eventually CARICOM in multiple- ways.

Regards,

Carlotta Mendonca.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-10-2020

maintains polls were manipulated, fraudulent

THE A Partnership for Na­tional Unity+ Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) party, on Tuesday, shunned the certification of the Re­gion Four results, as it continues to maintain that the elections were manipulated. 

On Tuesday, the signing of the certification for the Region four district occurred at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre, which is officially the final step of the first phase of the recount, and the party was not represented by way of signature. APNU+AFC agent. Juretha Fernandes, told the media outside the centre, on Tuesday, that the party is looking for what the order states and that is credible results. 

Fernandes also pointed out that the observation report has the power to turn things around.

I think the observation report has cast more than a shadow of doubt on the process. The process from day one. when we went into the very first box, we have been seeing numerous anomalies and it has been coming to front. It’s up to the CARICOM team right now and the CEO to send that report through to the Commission,” she said. 

Adding to her comment, another APNU+AFC agent, Daniel Seeram, said that there is still an ongoing investigation for the series of boxes which do not have statutory documents in them. There is also evidence that will substantiate investigations that dead and migrated people have voted, he said. However, other political leaders and party members are of the view that what the recount numbers are reflecting now will be the ultimate outcome. In fact, they believe that the observation reports will have no effect whatsoever on the final results. 

Expressing these sentiments was PPP/C agent Dr Frank Anthony, who said “In my view, no, the reports will not cast a shadow of doubt on the current numbers because the order that was issued was very clear and therefore we look forward to the next step where the CEO will prepare his report and present that to GECOM and GECOM will then do a declaration.” 

Sase Gunraj a GECOM commissioner representing the PPP said he too believes that the observation report has no impact on the process. He said that they are awaiting the summary of the 10 certificates and the observation reports and it is anticipated that, in a matter of days, the report will be ready to proceed to review and declaration. Meanwhile, Presidential Candidate of the Liberty and Justice Party. Lennox Shuman has already been making plans for the joint party’s one seat in the National Assembly. “We have been discussing how we could take that seat and hold the new incoming adminis­tration accountable. We have to ensure that the administration who sits there is held in account for the people and we can never go down this path again,” Shuman said. 

He also said that there is a lot of cooperation among the smaller parties to decide bow they are going to use the seat.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-10-2020

…AG says as GECOM chair orders Lowenfield to submit report based certified valid votes from recount
…sees breach of constitution with directive

By Svetlana Marshall

CHAIRMAN of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, has ordered the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield to prepare and submit a fresh Elections Report in accordance with the Certificates of Recount generated during the 33-day National Recount. But the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams, is challenging the GECOM Chair’s authority to dictate the compilation of the CEO’s report.

Justice Singh’s instruction came one day after the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) set aside the order of the Court of Appeal and invalidated the Elections Report, which was submitted by Lowenfield on June 23. Approximately 115, 000 votes had been excluded from that report on the basis that they were compromised due to a string of irregularities and cases of voter impersonation. The Court of Appeal had ordered that a President ought to be elected on the basis of “valid votes,” and it was on that basis the Chief Elections Officer compiled and submitted his initial report. But the CCJ ruled that the Court of Appeal’s decision was flawed, and had resulted in the unlawful invalidation of votes by the Chief Elections Officer.

In her letter dated Thursday, July 9, 2020, the Chair of the Elections Commission told Chief Elections Officer that Section 18 of the Election Law (Amendment) Act stipulates that he is subject to the direction and control of the Commission.

“In accordance with this section and pursuant to Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution, and Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act Cap 1:03, you are hereby requested to prepare and submit your report on the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections by 2pm on 10th July, 2020, using the valid votes counted in the National Recount as per Certificates of Recount generated therefrom,” Justice Singh wrote in her letter to the Chief Elections Officer.
The 10 Certificates of Recount, generated during the National Recount, showed a win for the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) but the accompanying Observation Reports, which were mandated by Order 60 – the legal cover used to facilitate the recount – pointed to massive irregularities and close to 5,000 cases of voter impersonation – dead and migrant voters.

Justice Singh had initially ordered the CEO to prepare an Elections Report, in accordance with the National Recount, on June 16. In arriving at that point, she had explained that while allegations detailed in the Observation Reports are “serious,” the Commission did not have the powers of a Court of Law to examine and re-examine witnesses or to procure official documents to determine the truth of the allegations contained therein.

According to her, the allegations are matters to be addressed in an Elections Petition in accordance with Article 163 (1) (b) of the Constitution, which confers on the High Court exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of an election.

A CONSTITUTIONAL BREACH
But the Attorney General, in a statement on Thursday, said the action of the Chair of GECOM amounts to a constitutional breach, noting that neither the Chair nor the Elections Commission could direct the Chief Elections Officer on what to include in his report under Article 177(2) (b) of the Constitution and Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) Cap 1:03.

“If the Chairman of GECOM advises the CEO as to what to put in his advice to the Commission, it would amount to a breach of the Constitution, since the Chairman of GECOM would be acting on her own advice and not acting only in accordance with the advice of the CEO, after such advice has been tendered to the Commission,” the Attorney General explained.

He reasoned that the framers of the Constitution and legislature envisaged that the CEO would independently prepare his advice under Article 177 (2) (b), and his report under Section 96 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, which has been constitutionalized by Article 162 (1) (b) of the Constitution. Williams said it is for the Chair and the Elections Commission to receive the advice and report of the Chief Elections Officer at a duly constituted meeting, and act on them.
“GECOM cannot rely on Section 18 of the Election Law (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 2000 which provides that the CEO is subject to the direction and control of the Commission, because it would be in conflict with provisions of Article 177 (2) (b) aforesaid and section 96 of ROPA (Representation of the People Act), which has been constitutionalized as aforesaid,” the Attorney General reasoned.

In support of his position, Williams alluded to Article 8 of the Constitution, which states that: “The Constitution is the supreme law of Guyana, and if any other law is inconsistent with it, that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
Further, the Attorney General pointed to Justice of Appeal Fraser in the case of Collymore v. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, in which, it was said that “No one not even Parliament can disobey the Constitution with impunity.”

A MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
The Elections Commission, nonetheless, is scheduled to meet today (July 10) to discuss the revised Elections Report, and the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) with a view to bringing an end to elongated electoral process.

The seven-member Elections Commission was expected to meet on Thursday (July 9) at 13:30hrs. However, the meeting was postponed to allow the Commissioners to study the written judgement of the Court.

The postponement of Thursday’s meeting did not sit well with some of the key players. The Citizenship Initiative (TCI), one of the nine political parties that contested the General and Regional Elections, in a statement, said it was concerned that the electoral process is being further delayed. The small political party, while pointing to the pronouncements of the CCJ, said it was necessary for the electoral impasse to be brought to a swift end.

“It has been four months since the Elections were held and the country has been without a Parliament for well over a year. No one in Guyana would regard this as a satisfactory state of affairs. We express the fervent hope that there would quickly be a peaceable restoration of normalcy. Now, the Law must run its course,” TCI said while quoting the President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders.

Guyana, it said, is longing for the results of the Elections, held since March 2, 2020, to be declared – a move that would trigger the formation of a new Government and Parliament.

“Now that the apex court of Guyana has definitively ruled on the way forward, it is quite clear what needs to be done. GECOM, and the people of Guyana, have bent over backward enough. GECOM needs to now act decisively to bring our election process to a swift conclusion,” TCI said.

The party said the time has come for all Guyanese to work together to take the country forward. This can only be achieved, it said, if there is respect for the laws governing the country. “We respectfully request Madame Chair, Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh, to do everything in her power to bring the election to its swift conclusion. TCI calls on Madam Chair to allow Guyana to breathe,” TCI urged.

It has been more than four months since elections were held in Guyana and no result has been declared.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_10_2020

…Commissioner Alexander proposes in new report to GECOM
…claims voter impersonation occurred since 2006; calls for new list of electors

By Svetlana Marshall

EVEN as the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield has been ordered to submit an Elections Report at 14:00hrs today, Elections Commissioner Vincent Alexander has made another case for a non-declaration of General and Regional Elections.

Alexander, the country’s longest-serving Elections Commissioner, had made a case in June for the nullification of the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections, given the enormous amount of irregularities and cases of voter impersonation that had been unearthed during the National Recount. But the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, had said that the Commission does not have the powers of a Court to examine and re-examine witnesses, or to procure official documents to determine the truth of the allegations.

Alexander has said, however, in a booklet that the position taken by the GECOM’s Chair is flawed.
He explained that the Chief Registration Officer, by virtue of Regulation 40 of the National Registration Act, is entitled to the periodic receipt of information on citizens departing from and returning to Guyana. Further to that, he said GECOM routinely receives reports on deaths for the purpose of deleting the dead from its Register.
Alexander submitted that none of the circumstances require individuals to appear before the Commission, since the procedures are administrative and routinely authorised. As such, he said there would be no issue of GECOM usurping the powers of the Court.

Further, Alexander said that while it has been argued that irregularities arising from the recount process can only be remedied by the High Court, in keeping with Article 163 (1) of the Constitution, careful perusal of the Article would reveal that it could only be activated following the conclusion of the electoral process.
“Election 2020 has not been concluded, thus Article 162 of the Constitution and Section 22 of the Election Law (Amendment) Act were invoked to overcome the difficulties that had arisen during the course of the elections. All that is contained in Order 60 of 2020, which originated from the invocation of the Constitution, and the Election Law (Amendment) Act, is therefore what GECOM has been empowered to do to remove the difficulties,” he reasoned.
While conceding that Article 162 does not confer the specific power of annulment, Alexander argued that it does empower GECOM “to take such action as appear necessary or expedient to ensure impartiality and fairness”.
In support of his position, he referenced the case of Gladys Petrie v. Attorney- General (1968), which addresses the issue of illegalities or omissions affecting the election and or the result.
Similarly, he said, the National Assembly (Validity of Election) Act could only be invoked at the conclusion of the electoral process, and as such it is not applicable to the current situation.

A LUDICROUS ASSUMPTION

According to him, it is “ludicrous” to think that Article 163 supersedes and ousters Article 162, when Article 163 could only be invoked within 28 days of the declaration of the Elections result.
“All that we are left with is the adherence to the Order in a purposeful manner, by returning to Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act by adherence to Clause 14 of the Order: ‘Determine whether it should request that the Chief Elections Officer to use data compiled in accordance with Paragraph 11 as the basis for the submission of a report under section 96 of the representation of the People Act Cap 1:03,’” Alexander said. On that basis, he made a case for a Non-Declaration.

He submitted that the degree of corruption unearthed during the National Recount is so grave that it is “impossible” for the Commission to declare a result.
“I posited then that only a new election could ensure the enfranchisement of the eligible voters, and the determination of the result based on the value of the individual eligible votes cast,” Alexander said. “Since then, many pundits, home and abroad, have expressed their views on the need for a Declaration; and what should be declared etc. I am therefore, herein, rearticulating my pre, peri and post- elections positions, in an effort to separate myself from the ‘wannabe knowledgeables’, since my articulation would be facts-based and dismissive of the contentions of many of the pundits,” he wrote in his booklet.
In doing so, he pointed to five primary facts: That the Official List of Electors is significantly bloated, having a voting population of 660,998 persons when the country’s population is 750,000; the bloated list is as a result of the thousands of Guyanese who died or migrated but were not removed from the National Register of Registrants Database (NRRDB); and the National Recount confirmed that unscrupulous people voted in the place dead and persons who were out of the jurisdiction.
“In 2006, impersonation was detected at Strathspey, on the East Coast of Demerara. It was reported to the Chief Election Officer, who undertook to investigate the matter but never did. In 2011, at a Polling Station at the school on Eccles Old Road, impersonation was detected, and again in 2020 at a Polling Station at Line Path, Skeldon impersonation was detected,” the Elections Commissioner pointed out.
Further, he said that notwithstanding plans by GECOM to cleanse the NRRDB, the country went into the 2020 Elections with the bloated list, and on Elections Day, a large number of persons were voting, using the Oath of Identity rather than an Identification Card or Passport. “This, for me, was a red flag. GECOM had done everything possible to make Identification Cards available to registered voters,” Alexander posited.
On the issue of the recount, Alexander said that while it has been argued that it was numerical in nature, the Order which triggered it provides for much more than “rudimentary things”.
On the basis of his initial position that no voter should be disenfranchised, and only valid votes should be counted, Alexander said the solution to the challenges currently before the Commission is for a non-declaration, and a for a new process to be initiated that reaffirms the enfranchisement of all, and negates the impact of fraudulent votes.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_10_2020

Dear Editor
It was 56 years ago on July 6 that someone loaded explosives in the Son Chapman vessel, killing many Afro-Guyanese who were returning from Georgetown to their homes in Linden. That incident, which some believe was instigated by foreign meddling, triggered the worst ethnic conflict in Guyana’s history. The wounds from that period never fully healed, and today another generation of Guyanese wonder whether foreign meddling in the Guyana 2020 elections will trigger a renewed ethnic conflict, inflicting new wounds and causing old wounds to start bleeding all over again.

Guyana’s election cycles have always included traces of ethnic tensions, but certainly not to the levels that we see today. Evidence show clearly that dishonest person or persons committed a massive and sophisticated electoral fraud during the March 2 elections. The fraud is massive because more than 400 of the 2200 ballot boxes were affected. The fraud design was sophisticated because it employed within a larger strategic plan, several smaller tactics, including voter impersonation, fake ballots, and the destruction of audit documents. And it is because of that attempted electoral fraud, planned before election day, and apparently with help from foreigners, that Guyanese are must now endure this period of heightened ethnic tensions. Undoubtedly, without the evidence of fraud, the election results would have been declared and accepted a long time ago – irrespective of the winner.

The national recount of votes was expected to provide assurances that the election results would reflect the will of the people, and bring an early, peaceful conclusion to the elections held over five months ago. That recount exercise did the exact opposite. It exposed the carefully planned and executed attempt to steal the elections, and has angered APNU+AFC supporters, confirming their views that the PPP/C leaders cannot be trusted. But more significantly, the fraud so clearly exposed during the recount is now being overlooked, downplayed, or ignored by the opposition parties and foreign commentators. The willingness of the opposition parties to accept fraudulent results is understandable, but not so with those foreign observers who paradoxically insist on using fraudulent votes to produce credible results. Ignoring the fraud does not make it go away, and any government elected using those fraudulent votes cannot be considered legitimate.

Because of the extent of the fraud, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) now finds itself in a conundrum. It cannot nullify the elections because it lacks legal authority to do so. It can decide to count the fraudulent votes to declare a winner and try to force an illegitimate Government onto the Guyanese people. Or it can exclude the tainted ballots from the results, thereby disenfranchising many Guyanese. Either decision will most likely anger approximately one half of the nation. One decision will facilitate fraud, the other will disenfranchise thousands.

There is also a third option. Both major parties can seek to use this opportunity to build a national unity government to serve until the electoral system can be revamped to allow truly fair and transparent elections. This third option would save the nation from what can easily become the world’s newest oil-fuelled conflict – like the one which lead to the division of Sudan. Unfortunately, many Guyanese political and business leaders seem more willing to pander to foreign interests than to the interest of the nation. But that can change. There is no better time for these leaders to put Guyana first.

Respectfully
Max Mohamed

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_10_2020

AMIDST the legal and political battles precluding an end to Guyana’s four-month-long elections, international business experts have cautioned that further delay in conclusion will likely result in financial losses to the country.

This concern was relayed in a written commentary on Thursday, by Vice president of Manchester Trade Ltd., an international business advisory firm in Washington, Dr. David Lewis and a Senior Associate of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C., Dr. Anthony Bryan.

The men noted that, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, International Monetary Fund (IMF) has pinned Guyana as perhaps the only country in the Americas which will experience double digit economic growth due to its massive oil finds and recent achievement as an oil-producing nation.

However, the experts, like many others worldwide, have taken note of Guyana’s elections situation which has led to a delay in the swearing-in of a new President and Government and therefore a delay in the advancement of key projects when coupled with the pandemic.

“Amidst the chaos, Guyana could face serious setbacks, risking previous economic projections and potentially reducing a recent flood of investments into Guyana. Even as oil wealth starts to flow into government accounts, key policies and projects remain unfinished and the country has not yet made firm decisions about how to spend the oil wealth. Approvals for the next stage of Guyana’s oil development have also been delayed for months by the political uncertainty and regulators seem reluctant to act without knowing who might be in charge when the dust settles. Keeping development moving, unfortunately, seems to have become one more political playing card in an already-chaotic situation,” they stated.

Indeed, as reported by the Guyana Chronicle in June, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and pending governmental and regulatory approval, advancements on ExxonMobil’s third and fourth development projects have stalled.

The said projects are the Payara Development Project with outstanding approval for its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Field Development Plan, and the Hammerhead Development Project for which Exxon has paused its provision of the required EIA.

Another case for example includes the deadline for Guyana’s second Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) report which has been postponed to March 2021 due to restrictions associated with the pandemic and the delayed completion of Guyana’s electoral process.
For Guyana to complete its second report, it is necessary that an independent administrator be hired but the contract for the hiring cannot be signed by the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) as the proposed fee is above G$15M and permission to sign for above this amount must come from Parliament.
Guyana’s Eleventh Parliament was dissolved on December 30, 2019 to cater for the March 2, 2020, General and Regional Elections which has not yet concluded.
“Delays are likely to be costly. The country has taken in nearly US $100 million since production started earlier this year, with billions more on the horizon if development proceeds as planned. That’s revenue the government will desperately need to jumpstart the post-COVID-19 recovery.,” Lewis and Bryan stated.

However, they noted that the millions spent to develop the local service industry and to train thousands of Guyanese for jobs offshore will be put at risk if workers and companies cannot count on steady development moving forward.

The men said: “Guyana still has a golden opportunity on the hook. The country has taken the advice of the World Bank, Commonwealth Secretariat and others and has set up a Sovereign Wealth Fund and taken other steps to ensure that revenues are saved for the future. Whatever government is in power will be looking at annual oil revenues that easily exceed Guyana’s entire current gross domestic product in just a few years. But a steady and transparent regulatory process will still be a critical signal that current and future investors will be looking at to decide if Guyana will be a stable and trustworthy partner.”

They explained that while political chaos is “inevitably corrosive” to a country’s economic goals, insulating Guyana’s burgeoning oil industry from politics would go a long way towards ensuring that the country becomes a poster child for development and not a cautionary tale.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_10_2020

– political commentators, lawyer

WITH the fate of the country on the line, some lawyers and political analysts believe that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) should have treated with Guyana elections matter in a more meticulous manner and its failure to do so will likely result in far-reaching consequences.

On Wednesday, in assuming jurisdiction to hear an application filed by People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C), the CCJ set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal on the interpretation of the Constitution and invalidated the Elections Report submitted by the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield.

The CCJ’s decision places the electoral process back into the hands of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and the CEO must now submit a report in accordance with the June 16 directive, to submit his report based on the results of the recount.

Appearing as guests on Thursday on the St. Vincent and the Grenadines programme, ‘Early in the Morning with Jerry S. George’, were Attorney-at-Law, Brenden Glasford and Political Scientists, Dr. David Hinds and Aubrey Norton.

Giving his position, Glasford said that he believed that the entire matter was rushed while the legal explanation as to why the CCJ assumed jurisdiction on the matter was “glossed over” and lacked clarity.

“There should have been two separate hearings, one on the point of jurisdiction and the second hearing on the substantive legal issues. What we’ve seen from the hearing is that everything was rather rushed and jurisdiction kind of got lost in translation and I still do not think, having read the written judgement, that it was properly addressed,” he said.

“It should have been a more hotly contested issue both by the lawyers and the judges…the Court should have spent some time, distinguishing how one of its previous decisions is not applicable to the present case.”

Some of the other actions that Glasford took issue with was the Court’s failure to speak to the Patrick Hill v Sagicor Life Inc. [2018] CCJ case of Barbados which was raised by Trinidad and Tobago Attorney, Senior Counsel (SC), John Jeremy.

According to the lawyer: “A case was actually brought up, Hill v Sagicor, a case from Barbados which was decided in 2018 which I have yet to see the CCJ address. Maybe they thought it wasn’t relevant but I personally thought that, having read it…it dealt with an identical provision in the Barbados law that had a similar finality clause. I think, without addressing that case, it is possible that the decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice could be seen as per incuriam, that is, made without considering all the authorities.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Hinds said that even before the Court made its ruling, based on the way in which the questions of the judges were posed during the hearing, it was clear to him that a narrow reading would be taken of Article 177 (4) of the Constitution to somehow allow for the assumption of jurisdiction.

“I think they responded to a question that was frontally put by Ralph Ramkarran’s Senior Counsel from Guyana who argued that this thing has been going on too long, we might even have to come back before you, so the Court should act…and I think the Court responded to that. You could have heard from their questioning during the hearing that they were looking for jurisdiction.”

In his opinion, the CCJ’s decision to assume jurisdiction on the said matter will have negative ripple effects across the Caribbean and on those who hold the Court as their apex Court.

“I think there was massive legislation from the Bench that has a political effect since it was clear that the Court had no jurisdiction under [Article] 177 (4) from the Guyana Constitution and [Section] 4:3 from the CCJ Act. Any action by the Court, in my estimation, could not be a legal action,” Dr. Hinds stated, adding: “I think it was reckless behavior on the part of the Court.”

Norton agreed with the aforementioned positions. He pointed to remarks he had made prior to the Court’s ruling that should it assume jurisdiction on the said matter, it would be plunging itself into a future “credibility crisis”.

He said while one would have preferred to view the Court’s ruling as impartial, there were clear cases, as mentioned by Glasford, in which the CCJ selectively omitted key information.

“One of the elements that point clearly that it was political, was the way they were selective in using Order No. 60 of 2020. Here they were on the one hand insinuating, ‘use the tabulation’, but on the other hand, they weren’t prepared to discuss the actual [Order] in its entirety because to do that would have established that they needed to have reconciliation and verification before the declaration of valid votes. It is at that point, it became obvious to me that it was a political ruling than a legal ruling,” he said.

However, on the other hand, Glasford disagrees with Dr.Hinds and Norton that the CCJ made a “political decision”, noting that the Court quoted supporting points of law at each aspect of its decisions. As a lawyer, he said that he is more concerned about whether the correct decision was made based on the law.

“While I understand their perspective, I don’t think it is correct to say it is a political decision. It is a legal decision with grave political implications, especially the tone in which the decision was given,” he contended.

However, Norton maintained that, in his deduction, the matter became political when the Court decided to use Order No. 60 selectively and not in its entirety.

“When you have those inconsistencies, it is not people that are imputing anything to the CCJ, it’s the Court system imputing it to itself,” he said.

As it relates to the Court’s treatment of Order No. 60, Glasford has observed that the procedural provisions were dealt with and not the recitals, both of which he said the Court had a duty to address. “It comes back to the extreme speed with which they heard the matter. I don’t think that they had the time to consider all the finer points in the matter that has such grave consequences; it is their duty to do so.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Hinds said that the CCJ, by setting aside the Chief Elections Officer’s report, which was based on the stipulations of Order No. 60, the Court has not provided Guyana any more clarity than it previously had.

“They set out to pull the rug from under the feet of those who are arguing that you should use the recount observation Order but, in so doing, they’ve pulled the rug from under the feet of any tabulation, any declaration that has to do with the recount. My own view, is that they’re walking back everything and, by this morning, I think we’re back to the 10 declarations that are theoretically still sitting there in the hands of Mr. Lowenfield,” he said.

Likewise, Norton said that while he does not believe that it was the Court’s intention to place Guyana “right where it started”, such was the reality of the assumption of jurisdiction and the subsequent ruling.

With the CCJ being Guyana’s apex court, Glasford put into perspective: “Having that decision from the CCJ, another Court in Guyana is not going to touch that interpretation again and whatever has to happen in the future, a decision has to be made in the context of what was said and they have left little room for doubt about what they see the law in Guyana to say in relation to valid votes and in relation to the recount.

He said that what the CCJ did, in effect, was to “sever parts of the recount Order” to state that whatever aspect is not in line with the Representation of the People’s Act is not applicable. He believes that there could be upcoming judicial review cases coming to the Court, depending on what the Elections Commission does next.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_10_2020

CHAIRMAN of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Dr. Ralph Gonsalves, in bis first message on the Guyana elections situation, since bis assumption as Chair, bas called on political s take holders to respect tbt recent ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and to conclude the elections “without further delay”. 

In a release, on Thursday evening, the Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines said that the Court’s ruling should lead to a declaration by the Guy ana Elections Commission (GECOM) of the results of the elections as awaited since March 2, 2020. 

“The Caribbean Community welcomes the progress towards the finalisation of the electoral process in Guyana following the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice on Wednesday 8 July. The Community calls on all stakeholders to respect the ruling of the CCJ, Guyana’s final Court of Appeal,” he said. 

He pointed to tl1e summary judgement of the CCJ which he said aptly stated: It has been four months since the elections were held and the country has been without a Parliament tor well over a year. No one in Guyana would regard this to be a satisfactory state of affairs. We express the fervent hope that there would quickly be a peaceable restoration of normalcy.” 

Furthermore, Gonsalves, who was amongst the five CARICOM Prime Ministers who visited Guyana back in March 2 to help p broker a peaceful end to the elections, commended Guyanese for their patience and urged the country’s leaders to respect the rule of law. lie said: “Accordingly, the Court’s ruling should lead to a declaration by the Guyana Elut io ns Commission (GECOM) of the results of the General and Regional Election, held on 2 March 2020, without further delay. CARICOM commends the continuing patience and calm of the people of Guyana and calls on all stakeholders to respect the rule of law.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_10_2020

Dear Editor,
AS the Caribbean Team invited to supervise a national recount departed these shores on May 17, 2020, Prime Minster Mottley remarked, “It is clear that there are forces” (in Guyana) that do not want to see the votes recounted, for whatever reason.”

Prime Minister Mottley, who is also the current Chairwoman of the CARICOM was invited to Guyana after President Granger proposed the idea of a national recount of votes, a gesture that was agreed to in principle by Bharrat Jagdeo, Opposition Leader and General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party.  A CARICOM Team was assembled, and made their way to Guyana on the invitation of GECOM on March 15, 2020.  An injunction seeking to have the national recount “supervised” by CARICOM was presented to the High Court.  The injunction was carried by the High Court on March 17, 2020. The ruling noted, inter alia, that GECOM is constitutionally mandated to supervise a national recount, and manage the electoral system of Guyana. No other entity, agency or individual can perform the constitutional responsibilities of GECOM.

On March 15, 2020, Mr. Gerry Gouveia, Chairman of the Private Sector Commission was seen in a picture with Prime Minster Mottley that was circulating on social media. The text above the image showed that Roraima’s ground-handling crew facilitated the arrival of the CARICOM Team.  The text also showed Mr. Gouveia calling for a national recount; that is, all 10 electoral districts.

On April 6, 2020, Mr. Gouveia, through the media, stated that a national recount would be a waste of time.  This is after said recount was agreed to by the GECOM, the APNU+AFC ‘Coalition’ and the PPP/C and CARICOM in the first instance. In the second instance, the Commissioners and Chairwoman of GECOM agreed to proceed with a recount.

It begs the question, then: What are the Chairman of the PSC and the PPP/C afraid of and hiding, so much so that both have publicly contradicted themselves and placed the members of PSC in a politically precarious situation?

Yours,
R. Chung-A-On

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_10_2020