–Ulita Moore’s lawyers elated at Appeal Court’s decision not to let CARICOM oversee elections recount

SENIOR Counsel Roysdale Forde and Attorney-at-Law Mayo Robertson have expressed deep satisfaction with the decision of the Court of Appeal that it would be unconstitutional for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to usurp the powers of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) by supervising a national recount of all the votes cast at the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections.

“We have been vindicated,” Robertson told reporters moments after exiting the Court of Appeal on Sunday. Robertson and Forde are part of a battery of lawyers representing Ulita Moore, a private citizen, who, on March 17, 2020 challenged GECOM’s decision to facilitate a national recount under the supervision of a high-level CARICOM team, based on an agreement made between President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo.

On Sunday, the Court of Appeal, while noting that the majority of the reliefs sought by Moore could only be addressed through an Elections Petition, ordered that any agreement in which the supervision of the elections is removed from GECOM and ascribed, or given, to any other authority would be unlawful. That Order was made in favour of one of the declarations sought by Moore.

“Our position, from the ‘get-go’ was that the so-called agreement with CARICOM was unconstitutional, and we have been vindicated on that aspect of the claim,” Robertson said.
“The Court has said that the agreement unlawfully allowed someone else to supervise the conduct of the counting, and that was our position from Day One. So we are very satisfied with that,” he told reporters.

Forde, who was also in agreement with his colleague that the position they’d taken in the matter was justified, said that while the Full Court overturned Justice Franklin Holder’s decision, and ruled that the High Court had no jurisdiction to review the actions of the Elections Commission, as sought by Moore in her Fixed Date Application, the Court of Appeal ruled that the High Court had constitutional supervisory jurisdiction to determine whether the agreement, for which GECOM had intended to act upon, was constitutional.
He said the ruling comes at a time when the Leader of the Opposition is insisting that CARICOM must supervise the recount. “You would have heard over the last 48 hours, I believe, some statement by the Leader of the Opposition that he doesn’t want GECOM involved; he wants it (the recount) to be done by CARICOM,” the Senior Counsel said, while iterating that the Appellate Court’s decision that any such agreement would be in breach of Articles 62 and 162 of the Constitution.

AWAIT CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS
Further to that, Forde said GECOM should await the consequential orders of the Court before proceeding with the national recount, as agreed upon during last Friday’s meeting of the Elections Commission.

“I believe that GECOM still has to do that, because the final output of the Court is producing its orders. And as of now, we don’t know exactly what are the onsequential Orders that the court will make, and what will be the impact of the orders that the court will make. And we also do not, having regard to what we would have seen from the Orders, whether advice would be tendered to either side, not just my client, as to the fact that they should appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice,” Forde reasoned.

Last Friday, Kim Kyte-Thomas, the Legal Counsel representing GECOM Chairman, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, informed the Appeal Court that while the Elections Commission has concretised its decision to facilitate a recount, it will not proceed until the court so rules.
Meanwhile, Attorney-at-Law Anil Nandlall, who is among three lawyers representing Jagdeo, the seven-named respondent, told reporters that it is important to note that while the Court of Appeal has established that the High Court has “narrow jurisdiction” to hear Moore’s case, it did not restore the injunctions, which were discharged by the Full Court.

“Importantly, the recount has not been stopped by the Court, so the recount is expected to progress,” Nandlall said, adding: “The injunctions that were granted by Justice Holder preventing the recount from taking place were not resurrected by this court. Thirdly, the matter is not going back to Justice Holder for his consideration, so the matter has ended here. And the only point that the Court made was that GECOM must be in charge of the recount, and must not give that responsibility to any other agency.”

According to Nandlall, the Appeal Court’s decision does not block GECOM from collaborating with entities such as CARICOM during the execution of the recount. “It doesn’t mean that observers cannot be present,” he said. “All it means is that GECOM is in charge of the process.”

ERRED IN INTERPRETATION
He, however, contended that the Court erred in its interpretation of the agreement among the political leaders, CARICOM and GECOM. “They interpreted the arrangement between GECOM and CARICOM as CARICOM supervising the recount, and GECOM playing a secondary role,” Nandlall said. “Of course, we did agree with that interpretation, because that was not the arrangement; the recount was always going to be done by GECOM, but would have been observed by CARICOM playing a less than active role. That was the arrangement, and I hope that that still is the arrangement when GECOM decides to resume or begin the recount,” he added.

As of Friday, GECOM was still working out the modalities of the recount, and had not yet indicated whether International Observatory Missions (IOM) will be invited to observe the recount.

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

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_06_2020

 – WPA says time to end Guyana’s ‘ideological racism’

WORKING People’s Alliance (WPA) Executive, Dr. David Hinds, believes

that, no matter the ultimate winner of the 2020 General and Regional Elections, the only way to take Guyana into a harmonious future is through shared governance.

The WPA is a part of the six-party coalition which makes up the A Partnership for National Unity(APNU), along with the Alliance For Change (AFC) which broke the single party rulership radiation in 2015. In his column in the Sunday newspaper, Dr. Hinds made a bold move in the reiteration of his lobby for even greater collaboration but with the country’s leadership divided with the party which currently forms the opposition.

“I have lost interest in what is in those ballot boxes. I do not think national reconciliation and a peaceful Guyana reside in those boxes. The content of those boxes spell trouble-more trouble. Perhaps there will be a recount. And neither side would accept the out come of that recount if it is allowed to be concluded. And God knows what would happen,” Dr. Hinds wrote. 

“Scrap this election. Destroy those boxes. Install an Interim Government led by Granger as president and the PPP man as Prime Minister. Divide the Cabinet equally between the two sides. Go back to the old parliament. Set up am independent Commission tasked with structurally overhauling GECOM, changing the governance architecture and the electoral laws to ensure outcomes that are in keeping with power sharing. Give them two years to do that and then go back to elections.”

The WPA Executive said that he last made the suggestion in unison with Political analyst, Dr. Henry Jeffrey. while on a radio programme hosted by media personality, Dennis Chabrol, on March 10, 2020. 

In his observation, Guyana still gravely suffers from “ideological racism” and is constantly exposed to the risk of ethnic domination and ethnic marginalization.

On the other hand, he stated that the WPA is interested in a power-sharing government of national unity.

Dr. Hinds stated that while the People’s Progressive Party ( PPP) Opposition has hinged its emotive pitch for re-election on being the  defenders of democracy, it is mistaken to paint the picture that the APNU+AFC government is a dictator ship. 

He said that this “democracy crusade” is ultimately an enabler of one side of a bitter fight with ethnic overtones. 

“Since the No-Confidence Vote of December 2018, we have witnessed the emergence of a cabal not a movement-that is prepared to use the rhetoric of democracy to reinstall the old regime that was cut short in 2015. Since there is no dictatorial PNC to justify their “democracy crusade”, they had to create one,” he said. 

“The APNU+AFC government was not dictatorial, and did not have a pattern of abuse of the rule of law. Mistakes yes, but dictatorship no. But that does not deter the PPP from mobilizing a lot of decent and upstanding citizens of mostly one ethnic group to lend their names to this most recent defence of de­mocracy. The symbol of the death of democracy is the ongoing saga which they claim was precipitated by the PNC’s attempt to steal the election.” 

Since the breakdown in the tabulation of Statements of Poll for District Four at the beginning of March, the most recent unfolding has seen the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) agreeing to a full recount of the ballots cast at the March, 2,2020. 

However. matters which could affect this are still before the Court of Appeal. Added to this, consider­ing the existing restrictions in place to guard against the spread of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), GECOM will have to approach government to dis­cuss the facilitation of the possible recow1t. 

No matter what happens, Dr. Hinds said that the cur­rent impasse presents an op­portunity for Guyana’s po­litical leaders and citizens to realise the value in working together for the greater good of tine country’s well-being. 

He stated: “Armed with a history of activism and with the memory of recent history, I think this impasse could be an opportunity a reawakening of our desire to live together in harmony. 

As uncomfortable as the last month has been, maybe it’s a blessing in disguise-an outcome to remind Guyanese that Guyana belongs to all of us.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_06_2020

A TEAM organised by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) distributed some 325 face masks to citizens at the Parika Market, on Sunday, as part of that party’s efforts to help fight the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

According to party candidate, Deodat Indar, the team was organised by PPP/C Presidential Candidate, Irfaan Ali. In a live Facebook video from the market which was densely populated, Indar lamented that market sellers and buyers were not adhering to the guidelines for social distancing set in place by the government.

“This COVID-19 pandemic is a serious one. This market, as you can see right now, people are busy. Social distancing is something that will enable the slowing down of the spread of this pandemic, but, if you look around, you will see that people are not adhering to social distancing guidelines set by the authority,” he said.

He said that the PPP/C is in support of social distancing, and at this time it intends to do its part by distributing the masks to avoid the spread of the virus. Indar urged citizens that, even if they don’t feel as if they are at threat to the virus, they should take all precautions because persons can be carriers of the virus but show no symptoms.

He stated: “In everything we do we have to flatten the curve, meaning that we have to ensure COVID-19 does not destroy this country…this virus is the first of its kind for this generation and we have to do what we have to do to make sure that we stop the spread of it”.

At the time, there were only 325 masks available to be distributed as they are being sewn by a seamstress. Those assisting in the distribution were Chairman for Mora/Parika Neighbourhood Democratic Council (NDC), Jaideo Sookoo; Chairman of the Hydronie NDC, Parasram Persaud; Assistant First Secretary for Region 3 Group B, Deonarine Jaipersaud and Activist Georgieanna Rahman.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_06_2020

Dear Editor,

At the close of poll on March 2, 2020, the General and Regional Elections were adjudicated free and fair by the Guyana Elections 

Commission •(GECOM). Over the years, GECOM had always been extremely sluggish in delivering the results, hut this year, Guyanese were hopeful that there would be a declaration, and a swift swearing in of a President. Remember, we had already been told that the Election had to be conducted with a list of Electors of in excess of 600,000 persons, out of a population of 750,000, which was the initial worry of the electorate. The PPP did not want to sanitise the list. But why’! Remember, Anil was allegedly caught red-banded by Minister Ally on Elections Day as be was allegedly cited for distributing Identification Cards of persons who were cither dead or overseas to persons to vote on their behalf. How­ever, the ‘Coalition’ looked past the.st small anomalies. Who would have even envisioned what was about to materialise in the subsequent weeks to follow? 

As an astute political nation grew anxious for the imminent announcement, respectfully, His Excellency David A. Granger kept reassuring the people that GECOM has their mandate to ensure a credible elections, and urging them to remain patient and calm, while the People’s Progressive Party Civic had their heinous, devious and destructive plans to execute. On Wednesday night, the process for tabulation of Region 4 (Demerara-Mahaica) were halted. Here is where the process went haywire, as disagreements to how the Statements of Poll were to be verified by use of the spreadsheet (something that U1e current GECOM staff had inherited since 2006; and the same method was used to verify all the other regions). Louder and louder the cry was sounded by the Opposition, that the A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) were behind the discrepancies, and that GECOM had colluded with the ‘Coalition’ to steal these elections. The plan had begun to unravel Remember, Region 4 had the most electors, and ,vas deemed the deciding factor for the 2020 elections. 

The People’s Progressive Party clashed with the police as they attempted to invade the office that the Chainman of the Commis­sion operated out of, with video evidence of Opposition Leader and General Secretary of the PPP in the middle of the melee, shouting and carrying on, as Mingo ws declaring, to a loud cry of, NO! in his office. While the Opposition was kicking down the door of the other office. Mrs. Singh, probably scared out of her wns, locked herself in foe several hours. Hooliganism at its finest! The plan ·was unfolding, that the PPP wanted to hold this entire process hostage. On the other hand, His Excellency continued to tell the Guyanese public to keep calm; he continued to say he will not interfere with the work of GECOM, and kept admonishing the Opposition to allow GECOM to do their work. 

By Friday, the supporters of the Op­position had blocked roads at Lusignan. on the East Coast, by burning tyres, and placing utility poles across the road, loudly demanding a recount. In this protest, we saw the blatant disregard for age as there were children holding protest placards. In their anger, some may even call it an act of terrorism, the protestors smashed the rear windscreen of a David ‘G’ school bus while taking children home from school, injuring several of them, and causing them to have to be taken to the hospital for treatment. One month after, still no apology from the joint Opposition. FurU1er up the road, police could be seen running for their lives, and one cop was nearly hacked to death. Again, no condemnation for these atroci­ties. We were seeing the old Opposition at work; the same Opposition that threw down the gauntlet on this country for 23 years. 

For several weeks, we have seen the work of the Ministry of Social Cohesion ripped to shreds; the country that we thought was free of racism truly wasn’t. Hemous acts, vile comments, blatant rac­ism and death threats hurled at the ·coali­tion’; yet U1e narrative from the President remained consistent: Peace and calm; let GECOM do their work. The love this man has for this country is immense; even in the greatest turmoil in our political history, His Excellency has remained resolute in his stance: That he could not swear himself m; he had to watt, like everyone else, for GECOM’s decision. 

The People ·s Progressive Pat:ty/Civic has gone completely rogue; highlighting something as serious as COV ID-19, by going to the once responsible News Room and saying they had a task force prepared to fight the pandemic, and with a level of dis­respect for all involved, placed Government in Waiting as their tagline. This is beyond callous, and far surpassed anything they had ever done before, with the most vile acts of disrespect on the Guyanese people., with an apology still pending.

Jagdeo is grandstanding; no matter the decision of the courts, he will say that the ‘Coalition’ has rigged the elections. This is his endgame: POWER AT ALL COSTS, even in the face of a pandemic, where the country is functioning on financial fumes. Even if the ballots are recounted, he will find an avenue to say the ballot boxes were tampered with. One is of tine opinion that he not only has a Plan A, but a Plan G as well, with even more to come. He will never accept defeat; he has way too much to lose, and his actions are not one of a winner, but of a bully; that it is his way, or no way. 

Our Constitution is clear! After the declaration of the results of all regions are made, the summary must be presented to the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission, who then has to ensure swift movements are made for swearing in the President. And if the parties have an issue with anomalies of the election, U1ey must file an Elections Petition to investigate same. This is the procedure. 

Swear in a person of integrity, class, and accountability; a person who loves Guyana. His Excellency the President of the Coop­erative Republic of Guyana, David Arthur Granger. We need him now, more than ever. 

I call on all Guyanese ·to ensure that the People’s Progressive Party Civic respects our Constitution, which is the supreme Law respect the Guyana Elections Commission and let them follow that Law. We have an epidemic to conquer! Can we do it? Yes we can!

It is time again, Guyana! 

Moving forward together!

Regards,

Douglas Gittens

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_06_2020

–establishes partial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter

ANY agreement that usurps the powers of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to supervise elections in Guyana is unconstitutional, the Court of Appeal ruled on Sunday.
The ruling had to do with its allowing, in part, an appeal against the Full Court’s decision that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case brought by Ulita Moore, challenging the decision of GECOM to conduct a national recount under the supervision of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

“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 Court of Appeal.

Before addressing the substantive issue of jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal granted Moore leave to appeal the Full Court’s decision. The decisions were handed down by Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud, and High Court Judge Brassington Reynolds, in an appeal brought by Moore after the Full Court overturned an earlier decision that the High Court did have jurisdiction in the matter. That decision had been made by High Court Judge, Justice Franklin Holder.

In partially allowing Moore’s appeal on Sunday, Justice Gregory said:
“My order is to allow the appeal in a small part; I do not agree with the Full Court that everything was to be referred to the Elections Court. There was sufficient [evidence] before the High Court to trigger the constitutional supervisory jurisdiction, and so, with that exception, I would essentially dismiss the appeal.”
However, when asked by Attorney-at-Law Timothy Jonas whether Moore’s application still stands dismissed, as ordered by the Full Court, Justice Gregory responded in the negative, saying:

“The Court having ruled in her (Moore’s) favour, then it can’t be dismissed.” She however ordered that any agreement, in which the supervision of the elections is removed from GECOM and ascribed, or given, to any other authority would be unlawful.

ELECTIONS COURT MATTERS
Justice Gregory would, however, rule that the majority of the claims made by Moore in her Fixed Date Application (FDA) for Judicial Review are matters that ought to be addressed by an Elections Court by way of an Elections Petition. In her application, Moore contended that the Elections Commission, by failing to consider the report of the Chief Elections Officer, which would have led to the declaration of the President, was in breach of Article 177 of the Constitution, and Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act. But according to Justice Gregory, those actions are not automatic.

“It could not be that once a certain stage had been reached in the process that it was automatic that the process would move to Article 177 and Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act,” Justice Gregory said while emphasising that the claims, as contended by Moore, could not be sustained.

Further to that, Justice Gregory ruled that an order for a recount of all the votes cast at the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections under Section 22 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act 2000 would not be unconstitutional. “That Order enabled the Elections Commission, as I saw it, to exercise the powers of the nature, which it was given by the Constitution,” Her Worship said, adding: “In my view, there was nothing unconstitutional about Section 22 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act of 2000; in fact, it enabled arrangements to be made for the recount.”

Section 22 (1) states: “If any difficult arises in connection with the application of this Act, the Representation of the People Act or the National Registration Act or any relevant subsidiary legislation, the Commission shall, by order, make any provision, including the amendment of the said legislation, that appears to the Commission to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty; and any such order may modify any of the said legislation in respect of any particular matter or occasion so far as may appear to the Commission to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty.”

SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION
However, in Justice Gregory’s opinion, the High Court has ‘Supervisory Jurisdiction’ to determine whether the Elections Commission was acting outside of its constitutional made. “While the Commission must be allowed to perform its functions,” she reasoned, “certainly the High Court must have the powers, as well as jurisdiction to enquire whether those functions are being performed as the Constitution mandates.”

As she would later point out, throughout her Claims and Affidavit, Moore referenced to the agreement made by President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo for a recount to be facilitated under the supervision of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). That agreement, Justice Gregory submitted, could be delinked from Moore’s other claims. She further noted that Moore’s assertion on the agreement was supported by Mark France in his Affidavit in Defence. According to her, those assertions must have triggered the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

“To my mind, such assertions must have triggered the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court to see whether those functions and powers under Article 62 and 162 were being compromised or being reduced by the terms of that agreement. So my view is that it could be delinked from the rest of the claims, and enquired into by the High Court, because there are facts on which the Court could have enquired,” Justice Gregory reasoned.
Article 62 states: “Elections shall be independently supervised by the Election Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article 162.”

More importantly, however, Justice Gregory noted that the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear Moore’s application is a “narrow” one. On that basis, the Appellate Judge reasoned that had Justice Franklin Holder been allowed to exercise jurisdiction, it would have been to address solely the nature of the arrangement under the agreement among the political leaders, CARICOM and the Elections Commission. However, the Appellate Judge noted that she would not send the matter back to the High Court though there is a “narrow” jurisdiction for the application to be heard.

Justice Reynolds, in his deliberations, said while part of Moore’s application could only be addressed via an Elections Petition, the section that treats with the agreement between the political leaders is one for which there could be juridical review to determine whether GECOM would have acted outside of its constitutional remit. However, Justice Persaud upheld the ruling of the Full Court, stating that the issues raised by Moore are matters to be addressed through an Elections Petition.
Today, the Court of Appeal will deliver the Consequential Orders in the case.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_06_2020

WHILE it has always been obvious that the PPP does not want to have a thorough and comprehensive examination of the results of the March 2 General and Regional elections, it is now becoming increasingly evident that the PPP is utterly and desperately terrified of a full recount and forensic audit of the elections. It is possible to determine the reason that the PPP is terrified of a comprehensive audit if one examines the auditing process, and the fact that a full examination will definitely reveal skulduggery and fraud.

First, we should bear in mind that the ultimate goal of the PPP is to grab political power at any cost, legal or illegal. Political power, though an end in itself, is also a means for the demonstrably greedy PPP heads to get their hands on taxpayers’ money and Guyana’s resources. Clearly, the PPP planned and plotted, and on December 21, 2018, the PPP put their sinister plot into motion with the allegedly paid-for no-confidence vote.

Regarding the recount and audit, we should know what the PPP wants versus what the Coalition desires. From the moment that the idea of a recount/audit, supported by the Coalition, began to gain traction, the PPP bosses have been running around the place like headless chickens in an effort to prevent such an exercise. They ran into the streets and staged ridiculous protests; they ran to the law-courts with comical motions and requests. The PPP brazenly threatened government officials, GECOM staff, activists, and even engineered attacks on innocent children. Yet, in spite of all the running around, the PPP lost.

Eventually, they tried to have only one region counted, Region # 4. After they ran around some more, they lost again, and it is now the current reality that all the regions will be recounted. That is what the Coalition wants: A full, transparent, comprehensive recount and forensic audit of the results of the elections in all the regions.

As it is, the PPP, having lost their desperate bid to prevent a recount, is now running around again. This time, however, the PPP bosses and heads, having accepted that they cannot stop a recount, are trying to block the audit. In other words, they just want the ballots to be counted, and nothing more.

They DO NOT want all the contents of the ballot boxes to be scrutinized, because, as GECOM has said in a ‘Guidance Note’, “A review of key documents is imperative to establish that the number of ballots found in the box accord with the number of electors who appeared to have voted at the polling station.” And, the PPP heads know that such a review will reveal their dirty hands; an audit will disclose their dishonest ways, and their rigging of Guyana’s elections.

Further, the PPP heads are running around even faster, trying to prevent the use of the list of electors in the recount, because they know that, the voters’ list, when it is compared with the numbers of ballots in the ballot boxes, will clearly show that the PPP stuffed ballot boxes, when, in truth, no one voted. In fact, the PPP’s Anil Nandlall admitted it.

He said, “Why are you expanding the scope of the process [to] check off things like the List of Electors (Voters’ List) who were ticked [off] by the presiding officers? What is the purpose of that? Why are you going to open envelopes of unused ballots and count it?” A terrified Nandlall said, too, “Why are we going to examine the whole process of elections? You are bound to find irregularities. That, to me, is creating a platform for unnecessary queries to be raised…” And, there it is, the PPP has just admitted that there were irregularities. And, who created those irregularities? Well, the answer is obvious.

The APNU+AFC Coalition wants to find the irregularities by auditing everything, while, on the other hand, the PPP wants to hide them by trying to prevent a recount and audit. Evidently, the PPP has a lot to hide; the PPP heads are terrified of being found out to be the dishonest, untrustworthy, fraudsters, and election-riggers that they are. But, the process is unstoppable; there will be a full, comprehensive, recount, and a thorough forensic audit. And, the sheep’s clothing of the PPP will be stripped away, revealing the greedy wolves beneath.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_05_2020

Dear Editor
From its pronouncements on the recount, the coalition expects two outcomes: (i) confirmation of its electoral victory, and (ii) exposure of PPP rigging in the districts the PPP won. Most recently, the AFC’s David Patterson spoke convincingly on both outcomes.

And while I support his case on (ii) above, I would advise the coalition that nothing must distract it and its election workers from attaining the first objective, i.e., verification of its victory. Its scrutineers at the 10 recount stations, therefore, must not get bogged down in prolonged arguments over, for example, spoilt votes (only 816 observed in Region Four, for example), as these likely affected all parties similarly. Nor should they chase after vague evidence of PPP cheating.

The far more important objective is to confirm its victory. And in that regard, the coalition must focus on a critical aspect of the recount. The process will not identify an election winner until extremely late or only at its very end. The coalition must not wait that long for the truth to be revealed; it must find a way to demonstrate far earlier in the process that GECOM’s previous numbers are credible (especially in Region Four) in terms of who won this election. The lesson learnt during the first attempt to tabulate the SOPs of Region Four at Ashmin’s building should not be ignored. Although 421 SOPs (48% of the total) easily passed muster, the subsequent disruptions of the process cast doubt on the eventual total tally and on the declared winner.

The coalition must not permit any such disruption or derailment of the recount to prevent the legitimisation of its victory. Even should there be no such trouble, it should not allow the opposition parties and critics to out-PR it as regards the trends and evidence in the early recount results. The coalition must proactively substantiate its claim of victory well before the final ballot boxes are opened.

In particular, it has to show that there was no inflation of its votes on the SOPs for Region Four. That the accusation of SOP tampering is a figment of the imagination of conspiracy theorists and the politically paranoid. To pursue this objective effectively, however, would require the release of its own or GECOM’s SOPs. Without a credible basis for comparison, I see no other way for the coalition to make its case early and thus avoid the severe risk of waiting on GECOM to complete the entire recount sometime in June or July. The coalition must know that others will not wait.

Regards
Sherwood Lowe

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_05_2020

Dear Editor
Guyana’s fragile post-election calm from 2006 to 2015 has been revisited by the tumultuous discord of the post- 1997 and 2001 elections and now threatens to descend into the virulence and violence which followed. In this unfolding situation we are witnessing the degeneration of social cohesion initiated through peace-building efforts leading up to the 2006 elections. An independent (UNDP funded) consultants’ post-election 2006 review identified a number of lessons learned, which they felt could be “replicated and/or improved for the future.”

Some of the more compelling pre-2006 election activities they identified, were: peace efforts to facilitate dialogue and 483 citizens engaged in conflict-transformation workshops; political parties and media representatives informed and trained on the Racial Hostilities and Representation of People Act; distribution of 18,600 user-friendly elections procedure manuals with training for GECOM staff and officials and made available in every polling station; the Election Assistance Board recruited and fielded 1,400 local observers; media personnel and houses signed the Media Code of Conduct; GECOM and donor agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding which was tabled in parliament; political parties signed a Peace Pact and Code of Conduct; recognition of the Private Sector Commission and preparation of the Joint Services to respond to volatile situations.

On elections day GECOM provided timely results and transparency in communicating to the public by publishing counts on a rolling basis. The results were posted continuously by media houses right up to official declaration (in three days) by the CEO. In the immediate post-election period both the local and international observers verified the fairness of the polls and the opposition parties conceded to a gracious winner, who almost immediately reached out to the opposition in a conciliatory way. In the words of the reviewers, “Guyanese society at age 40 finds itself in a unique position. On the one hand it attained this marked accomplishment which could signal its coming of age as a fledgling democracy.”

Despite the euphoria in this electoral calm, the reviewers were also cognisant that some segments of the population saw the (internationally sponsored) peace campaign as “the biggest social pacification programme ever attempted in Guyana” aimed at pacifying the opposition while ignoring the shortcomings and provocation of the incumbents. Some, they said, felt the donor community “could have better served Guyanese if implementation of constitutional reforms were leveraged for international support…Otherwise, the risk of another five-years of non-implementation of agreements resulting from the Herdmanston Accord, Constitutional Reforms and other agreements was likely”’

The review also provided some of the recommendations, made by Guyanese and observers who had participated in the pre-election and election day activities, on what was still needed to be done to address underlying concerns and establish a truly democratic society:

1. Social cohesion, especially trust-building, was seen as the pressing issue and “study” was important and needed in defining, understanding, and educating “trust” (or lack thereof) in the public and private sectors, NGOs, unions, schools, etc. while giving voice to women, youth, civil society, and ethnicities by creating new spaces beyond those currently dominated by politicians, criminals, and business.

2. Social Mitigation, especially with respect to the violence of poverty (sexual, child, spousal abuse); youth education, training, and employment opportunities; and development projects in local communities which engage local residents and youths in a meaningful way.

3. Improve the election process by: fixed-date elections every five years; increase the number and geographic diversity of GECOM Commissioners — more women, ethnicities, parties, and civil society; non-partisan (eg UG) study of elections and train citizens in Elections Management; and legislative action on campaign finances and use of public funds for partisan electioneering.

4. Constitutional and social reform: independent candidates allowed to contest local government elections; parliament prioritising and implementing reforms e.g. the National Development Strategy, Sir Davies Report, Bradford Report, Herdmanston Accord, St Lucia Statement and Disciplinary Services Report.

5. Legislative reform to develop the broadcast sector.

6. Political parties geared towards national interests rather than organised around ethnic fault lines.

7. Elections with direct selection of representatives would allow for community participation in decisions at the grass-roots level.
In this time of social isolation and election paralysis, Guyanese may be well served to reflect on what got us here, both the positive and the negatives. Two UNDP staff who played a part in the peace initiative identified these 10 values which underlie conflict-prevention approaches:

1. The process (election) is as important as the outcome (result);
2. Public commitment to non-violence by all parties;
3. Value-based leadership, i.e., non-incendiary vs confrontational election rhetoric;
4. Transparency by all: in source of funds, strategies, & post-election distribution of positions;
5. Information (credible and verifiable) sharing by all parties and agencies;
6. Accountability through citizen-engagement with politicians, the process and the outcome;
7. Accountability through codes of conduct for key players in the process;
8. Inclusion and flexibility in including who participate in dialogue and decisions;
9. Collaboration instead of competition, i.e., avoiding winner-take-all positions, and
10. Justice that is inclusive and fair.

Somewhere along the way we seem to have lost our way. The question for me was: Who dropped the ball? However, in this crisis there is little time for self-indulgent curiosity, instead, maybe we can use this retrospective to assess the current processes and performers. The dangling questions are: Can we get to less fractious elections and equitable democratic governance? And what do we need to do to get there? I suspect most of the answers have been around for 14 years, or more.

Regards
Rory Fraser

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_05_2020

–President Granger says, welcomes commencement of the recount

AHEAD of the National Recount, President David Granger as reiterated his long-held position that he will accept the results of the General and Regional Elections when it is declared by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).

“I have said, repeatedly, that I shall accept the declaration of the results by the Elections Commission, which will allow for a democratically-elected government to be sworn in to office,” the Head of State said in an address to the nation on Monday.

The recount, according to an Order gazetted by the Elections Commission on Monday, will commence on Wednesday, May 6, 2020, much to the satisfaction of the President.
“I welcome the Commission’s announcement; the entire nation is awaiting the completion of the recount of the ballots, and the declaration of the results by the Elections Commission,” he said.

It has been more than two months since Guyanese went to the polls on March 2. The President, in his address, noted that elections were “free, fair and orderly, but subsequent events resulted in the prolongation of the electoral process, well beyond the deadline for the declaration of results.”

Just as the electoral process was near completion, a private citizen, the late Reeaz Holladar, on behalf of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), moved to the High Court on March 5, 2020 to block the declaration of the results by the Elections Mission. That injunction triggered a number of other legal proceedings, both in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. It was after overcoming those legal challenges that the Elections Commission took a decision on April 3 to proceed with a National Recount in keeping with an earlier decision.

“I have complied always with the rulings of the Courts. I have never interfered, intervened or intruded in the work of the Elections Commission; its independence is respected, and I have upheld, always, the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, which is the supreme law of the land. I await the declaration of the elections’ results,” President Granger said.

It was President Granger, who had agreed to a National Recount on March 15, 2020 following an intervention by Chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley. The Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, had also bought into the idea, which would see a CARICOM delegation playing an integral role in the recount process.

AGREED TO TOTAL RECOUNT
He had agreed that “…a total recount of the ballots from all electoral districts in Regions One to Ten would take place urgently, and in accordance with the Constitution, the applicable law, and the judgment of the Court issued by Roxanne George, Chief Justice (ag.), on Wednesday, 11 March 2020.”

The Head of State, based on discussions with the CARICOM Chair, had also agreed that a high-level team from the CARICOM should be allowed to participate in the recount, but within the framework of the Constitution, under the aegis of the Commission, and the rulings of the Court.

“The CARICOM approved and arranged for a High-Level Team to travel to Guyana. The Team was expected to observe the recount, and submit its report to the Chairman or Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community. The Team was unable to do so owing to the unresolved legal issues related to the national recount. The Courts have since ruled,” he recalled.

The Head of Sate said he is satisfied now that the hurdles have been cleared for the Elections Commission to conduct the recount, and that the Commission’s Secretariat is prepared, fully, to execute its mandate.

“I am pleased to learn that a CARICOM High-Level Team has arrived in Guyana to observe the recount process in response to the Commission’s request,” he said, while adding that the Elections Commission must be allowed to do its work in accordance with the Constitution. As the Elections Secretariat puts system in place for the recount to begin on Wednesday, the President is urging all Guyanese to be patient, as they await the outcome of the national recount.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_05_2020

…GECOM sticking to scrutiny of ballot boxes despite PPP protest
…gazettes order which includes simultaneous counting of votes, live streaming

The Order, bringing into legal effect the National Recount of the votes cast at the March 2 General and Regional Elections, was published in the Official Gazette of Guyana on Monday, May 4.

The gazetting of the Order now paves the way for the much-anticipated recount to commence on Wednesday, under the supervision of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), and the watchful eyes of scrutineers drawn from the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

The Order, which comprises a total of eight ‘whereas’ clauses, was signed by Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), 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.

In accordance with the Constitution and the ruling of the Court of Appeal, the Order states that the Elections Commission will provide overall supervision and guidance to the Elections Secretariat during the conduct of the National Recount, and will serve as the final arbiter of issues not resolved at lower levels. Importantly, it states that an Order on the national recount will be gazzetted, and the final results of the March 2 Elections will be determined and declared.

Notably, while the recount will be conducted by GECOM’s staff, under the direct supervision of the Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, it will be scrutinised by the three-member CARICOM team, and witnessed by representatives of political parties that contested the elections, as well as accredited international and local observers, and advisers to the Elections Commission. The Chairman of GECOM and the Elections Commissioners will also be present.

It also clearly specified the duration of the National Recount, the sequence in which it will be executed, and the contents to be scrutinised. According to the Order, the recount will commence on Wednesday, May 6, at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC), and run for a period of 25 days; however, the duration is subject to review during the course of the first week. The 10 workstations, which will be housed within the Conference Centre, will operate every day of the week, from 08:00hrs to 19:00hrs, until the completion of the process.

NO GIVING IN
Based on the Order, the Elections Commission did not give in to the demands of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) that the votes should be counted one region at a time. In fact, the Order provides for the simultaneous counting of votes, starting with the first four (4) Elections Districts: Barima-Waini; Pomeroon-Supenaam; Essequibo Islands-West Demerara; and Demerara-Mahaica.

“The recount shall commence with the allocation of 10 workstations as follows: District 1, two workstations; District 2, two workstations; District 3, three workstations; and District 4, three workstations. The recount for District 4 shall continue at the three workstations assigned to it. The recounts for Districts 5 through 10 shall be conducted, based on the completion of, and at the workstations assigned to Districts 1, 2 and 3,” the gazzetted order states.

Further to that, clear guidelines have been established for the examination of the ballot boxes and the contents therein.
The PPP/C has been vehemently objecting to the scrutiny of the contents of the ballot boxes that are separate and apart from the ballots. According to the PPP, it should be a numerical recount of the ballots cast and nothing else.

CLEARLY-ESTABLISHED
But the Order clearly establishes a procedure for the contents of the ballot boxes to be analysed.
“Upon arrival of the ballot box at the workstation, it shall be first examined to ascertain that the seals are intact. The contents shall then be emptied, and the election materials examined. Notes shall be taken, and records made in accordance with the requirements of the Ballot Box Checklist. Any observation not catered for in the checklist provided shall be recorded on the Observation Report Form,” the Order states.

The supervisers at the 10 workstations will be required to sign off on the Ballot Box Checklists, in addition to the Observation Reports. Those reports will also be signed by representatives of each contesting party, and copies of the completed Ballot Box Checklists and Observation Reports will be given to the party representatives.

“The result of the General and Regional Recount of each ballot box shall be recorded, as provided for, on a Statement of Recount (SOR) upon the completion of the recount of each box,” the Order states, while noting that the SOR will be signed by the person conducting the recount, and the representative of each contesting party in the presence of officials entitled to be there.

It was a breakdown in the tabulation process in District Four that landed GECOM and the District’s Returning Officer (RO), Clairmont Mingo in the High Court. It was alleged that the procedure established in Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act was not followed, and that the RO had substituted the Statements of Poll (SOPs) with spreadsheets, and had failed to project the SOPs as required. This time around, the Elections Commission hopes not to have history repeat itself, and as such, has laid out clear guidelines.

THE TABULATION PROCESS
The tabulation of the Statements of Recount will be done at a central tabulation centre in the presence of the CARICOM Scrutinising Team, representatives of political parties, local and international observers and GECOM officials. “The Statement of Recount shall be projected on a screen to be viewed by all persons present, and the information shall be input into a matrix, which process could be viewed simultaneously by all persons present,” the Order states. Similarly, in the presence of those entitled to be there, all of the SORs will be tabulated by the District Superviser.

A copy of the signed matrix will then be submitted to the CEO, and copies thereof will be given to the parties’ representatives, observers, CARICOM Scrutinising Team, the GECOM Chair and Commissioners.

“The matrices for the recount of the ten (10) Electoral Districts shall then be tabulated by the Chief Election Officer, and shall be submitted in a report, together with a summary of the observation reports for each District, to the Commission,” another section of the order reads. It also indicated that the CARICOM Scrutinising Team will also submit a report to the Commission inclusive of its observations, recommendations and conclusions.

LIVE BROADCAST, NO LIVE-STREAMING
The Order also provides for the broadcast and live-streaming of the National Recount, though the Commission, in a majority decision in the recent past, had objected to live-streaming the process due to conflicts with Section 90 of the Representation of the People Act, which provides for the maintenance of secrecy.

According to the Order, each of the 10 workstations will have a facility which will capture and broadcast a picture of the ballot box, depicting the state in which it was delivered to the workstation, and an audio feed of the recount process. Added to that, an audio-visual facility will be installed in the Tabulation Centre, which will broadcast, live, the entire tabulation process.

BACKGROUNDER
In the eight ‘whereas’ clauses detailed in the Order, the Elections Commission justified its decision to facilitate the National Recount. It noted that while the General and Regional Elections were held in Guyana on March 2, 2020, the electoral process encountered a number of stumbling blocks, and in some instances, parts of the process were legally challenged in the Courts.

It explained that though the declarations of the results were made in accordance with Section 84 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, requests for recounts in a number of electoral districts were rejected, aborted, or held in abeyance. Further to that, a report detailing the results of the elections was submitted to the Chairman of the Elections Commission, but that, too, was held in abeyance, and aspects of the election process challenged in the Court.

Given the challenges that arose, President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo agreed to a CARICOM proposal for a total recount of all electoral districts, as “a means of assuaging the contesting parties and determining a final credible count.”
In keeping with the general consensus among the political parties, the Elections Commission, on April 3, made a decision to recount all of the ballots cast in the General and Regional Elections. Its actions, GECOM has always maintained, are in accordance with the Constitution and the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act.

The final clause states: “AND WHEREAS the Guyana Elections Commission, in exercise of the authority vested in it under Article 162 of the Constitution, and pursuant to Section 22 of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act, No. 15 of 2000, seeks to remove difficulties connected with the application of the Representation of the People Act, Chapter 1:03, in implementing its decisions relating to the conduct of the aforementioned recount of all ballots cast at the said elections, including the reconciliation of the ballots issued with the ballots cast, destroyed, spoiled, stamped, and as deemed necessary, their counterfoils/stubs; authenticity of the ballots and the number of voters listed and crossed out as having voted; the number of votes cast without ID cards; the number of proxies issued and the number utilised; statistical anomalies; occurrences recorded in the Poll Book.”
Now that the Order has been gazetted, the GECOM Secretariat is actively preparing for the recount.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_05_2020