…AG says as EU complains about delayed abolition of the law
…says dissolution of Parliament prevented scrubbing of the law

The European Union has criticised the government for still having on its law books criminal defamation, which can see journalists being jailed for libel, but Attorney General, Basil Williams said that the administration had already committed to scrubbing the legislation, but was hampered by the dissolution of parliament.

In its final report on the March 2, 2020 elections the EU observed that despite the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, Guyana is at odds with international obligations and in addition to civil law, defamation is prosecuted also by criminal laws with sentences up to two years of imprisonment. “While there were no ongoing criminal lawsuits or cases of journalists being detained or convicted, the mere existence of criminal liability for defamation constitutes a threat which may lead to possible self-censorship by media professionals,” the EU stated in its report.

Back in January this year the United Nations Human Rights Report (UNHR) had highlighted the fact that the Guyana had been working to remove defamation from criminal aspect of the laws. According to the report, the Office of the Prime Minister has been working with the Attorney General Chambers towards the decriminalisation of defamation. Those amendments will be before parliament before the end of 2020, the UNHR report had said.

The report had come ahead of Guyana’s human rights review at the UN’s office in Geneva. In its national report submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council ahead of its third Universal Periodic Review next week in Geneva, the Guyana Government had said it will be pushing for the decriminalisation of defamation and those amendments will be before parliament before the end of 2020. The issue has been on Guyana‘s human rights reformation agenda for some time now.

Media organisations have been lobbying Guyana and other jurisdictions to abolish criminal defamation for some time now. The International Press Institute has said that criminal libel law was born in an Elizabethan England courtroom as a means for silencing critique of the privileged class. The body said a law of such antiquated ethos, has little place in modern society where the press plays a pivotal role in shaping public discourse. The IPI had been actively campaigning for the governments of the Caribbean to redress their current criminal libel laws. At present, the law is vague and open to indiscriminate and inconsistent implementation, largely wielded to quell dissent and stifle government criticism, IPI had said.

While infrequently used in the Caribbean, criminal libel statutes remain, an unnecessary resource at the disposal of any offended official, IPI said, adding that the mere threat of prosecution chills investigation and free speech, sustains corruption, unnecessarily protects public officials, and denies one of the most basic of human rights, freedom of expression.

“Criminal libel is one of the most pernicious media constraints in contemporary society. Implemented at the will of any insulted public official, it frequently leaves no recourse for the defendant. In most countries, truth is not a valid defence, leaving defence a vexing proposition.”

It is not the first time international bodies have come out against Guyana for still maintaining the law on its books. Back in 2013, Catalina Botero, the Organisation of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression had reiterated the OAS’s concern over criminal defamation laws, particularly when they punish offensive speech directed at public officials.

Specifically, she recalled the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which establishes that when relating to matters of public interest “[t]he protection of a person’s reputation should only be guaranteed through civil sanctions”, and that laws punishing insult or contempt of public officials “restrict freedom of expression and the right to information.”Botero concluded: “These principles are key to facilitating open and uninhibited debate about matters of public concern, which is an indispensable condition for the functioning of a democratic society.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_06_2020

The European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) has presented its final report on Guyana’s General and Regional Elections, noting several shortcomings by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM); political parties and other stakeholders.

The report was handed over by EU Ambassador to Guyana, Fernando Ponz Cantó to Chair of GECOM, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, on Friday. The Guyana Chronicle summarised some of the key pointed highlighted by the EU EOM.

FUNCTIONING OF GECOM

From its observation, the EU EOM said that “post-election developments exposed a dysfunctional commission unable to control its own secretariat.” It said that the commission’s deliberations, decisions, instructions and essential electoral data were not publicly accessible.

Meanwhile, it noted that the bipartisan composition of the commission resulted in excessive polarisation, affecting the commission’s ability to function, reach common ground and make timely decisions.

“By failing to take decisive action as the electoral process derailed into chaos and illegality, GECOM abdicated its constitutional duty to take all actions necessary to ensure compliance with the law by any of its officials, despite unequivocal powers to remove and exercise disciplinary control over them,” the mission stated.

CAMPAIGN FINANCING

The mission noted concerns regarding campaign financing, stating that the legal framework did not sufficiently provide for transparency, accountability and oversight. It also said the GECOM did not assume its oversight responsibility to monitor campaign finance.

Moving forward, it recommended that effective legislation could provide transparency in campaign incomes and establish reasonable limits for campaign expenditure. It said that this could also ensure disclosure and reporting requirements and effective sanctions guided by an independent oversight body.

ONLINE AND OFFLINE CAMPAIGNING

During the campaign trail, the EOM said that these were “intensely” dominated by the governing A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) and the opposing People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) but other smaller parties were “barely visible”.

The Mission highlighted that “vote buying in Indigenous communities” was done by both the APNU+AFC and PPP/C with the coalition doing so through development programmes and the opposition through State resources “namely vehicles” at regional level.

While acknowledging that there are no laws to guide online campaigning, the mission said that social platforms channelled massive amounts of derogatory messages, false narratives and racially-heated comments, contributing to confusion and division among Guyanese.

MEDIA MONITORING

While the mission observed that freedom of expression and the media were generally able to freely cover the electoral process, it noted that the media environment is highly politicised. “The media environment is highly politicised, with very few independent media and the majority of media outlets being either directly affiliated or leaning to one of the two main political camp,” the EOM stated.

The EU EOM also highlighted that although the Guyana National Broadcasting Authority (GNBA) was equipped with a permanent media monitoring unit, it informed the EOM that it did not have enough capacity to conduct a thorough monitoring of the election coverage.

On different occasions, it noted that the Guyana Press Association (GPA), denounced cases of journalists being subject to intimidation via social networks, direct intimidation and attempted physical assaults by party supporters and complained about the lack of effective measures to ensure media workers’ safety.

TABULATION AND PUBLICATION RESULTS

The EU EOM has also recommended the adopting of clear written procedures for the transmission and tabulation of election results to ensure consistency of the process in all regions. This includes adequate traceability of handed over electoral documents and possibility for all authorised stakeholders to examine Statements of Poll (SOPs) as required by law.

Meanwhile, it suggested incorporating into law the obligation to accompany any declaration of results by simultaneous publication of detailed polling station results and digital copies of all SOPs. Added to this, it was put forward that the number of valid votes cast for each candidate list should also include all elements of electoral accounting.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM

The EU EOM pointed out that: “Once the date of elections is officially announced, all election-related disputes, except for challenges related to voter and candidate registration, should be raised only after the elections by way of election petitions.”

It said that electoral dispute resolution mechanisms are available mainly through judicial dispensation but the right to an effective remedy is not ensured as there are no deadlines for rendering decisions on electoral disputes.

It nonetheless commended the High Court and Court of Appeal for the way they dealt with the two critical post-election legal challenges.

Apart from these, EU EOM also acknowledged that a total of 660,998 voters were registered for the elections which is “well above the estimated resident adult population”. It positively noted that three out of nine presidential candidates and over 40 per cent of all candidates contesting the general elections were women but criticised that no voter education specifically targeted Indigenous people and not enough catering for the voting of Persons With Disabilities (PWDs).

RECOMMENDATIONS

For the next General and Regional Elections, the EU EOM recommended a review and consolidation of the “fragmented” election legislation; the launching of a consultation process to overhaul the composition and functioning of GECOM; the development of effective legislation to regulate political finance; the fostering of transparency and accountability in online and offline campaigning; the transformation of the state-owned media into a genuine public service broadcaster; the adoption of clear written procedures for transmission and tabulation of election results; the accompanying of any
declaration of results by simultaneous publication of detailed polling station results and digital copies of all Statements of Poll and the establishment of a comprehensive election dispute resolution system.

Following an invitation by the President of Guyana, the EU deployed the first-ever fully-fledged EU EOM, of 55 observers from 25 EU member states and Norway, to Guyana between from January 25 to March 20, 2020.

The EU EOM said that it was able to observe and report on all aspects of the election process until March 20, 2020 when it was repatriated to Europe due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_06_2020

THE purpose of our political system, as written in Article 13 of the Guyana Constitution, outlines that “the principal objective of the system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.”

This Article came out of the 1999 constitutional reform exercise which resulted from the then Opposition People’s National Congress/Reform (PNC/R), under the leadership of Mr. Hugh Desmond Hoyte, signing The St. Lucia Statement with then President, Janet Jagan, on July 2 1998. It was felt, among other things, that “measures and arrangements for the improvement of race relations in Guyana include the contribution which equal opportunities’ legislation and concepts, drawn from the CARICOM Charter of Civil Society, can contribute to the cause of justice, equity and progress in Guyana.”

The St. Lucia Statement has its genesis in the dissatisfaction at the outcome of the elections’ results expressed by the PNCR, and, more importantly, the fear and/or frustration of a significant segment of the population with regard to living under the administration of a party they had not supported to form the Government. This fear and/or frustration has/have its concerns rooted in persons’ opinions that they felt excluded from political decision-making, and that it has impacted their lives.

For years, the society has been told, and some have come to accept, that ours is a winner-take-all politics, where the party which has not secured the Executive, and its supporters, are denied. Again, our purpose here is not to argue any merit or demerit of this claim, but to examine the Article before us, and see how we can make it work in our common good in the here and now, even as conversations continue about constitutional reform.

Careful examination of Article 13 shows that it speaks to a solution to the discontent of 1997. It lays the platform, via the nation’s supreme law, to establish and foster a political solution built on the involvement of all, irrespective of our diversity, but inclusive of the political party supported. In that this Article was assented to by the then President, Bharrat Jagdeo, it was not unreasonable to harbour expectation that he would have charted a new course, consistent with its objective.

This notwithstanding, it does not mean that the Article cannot be activated to its fullest, and add fillip to the enveloping nationalism. The preference, harboured in certain quarters, to foster a politics of dissent or of “our time” does not negate, or should not obscure, the overwhelming desire of the ordinary man and woman to proceed along the road of inclusion.

Whichever way it is looked at, a diverse nation stands to gain more when all feel that their voices are heard, their opinions and inputs valued, their choice of representative respected, and their taxes invested in them, irrespective of political or apolitical interests.
Few, if any, relish living in a nation constantly racked by silly divisions, whose laws work for some and not all, whose citizens oppose only for the sake of opposing; a nation comprised of feeble men acting as though they are omnipotent, and engaging in endless back and forth, with none wanting to concede anything or listen to the other; all being more bent on talking past each other, and everyone out to prove they are right and the other is wrong.

That is not a healthy relationship for any people to cultivate, be it in the home or in public life. Guyanese having gone past the stage of saying ‘enough is enough’, many continue to register disapproval and discontent with their feet. Those who have stayed or desire to return are pleading with their leaders to give development for all a chance to work. The best place to start is at Article 13, given that it aims to ensure a society wherein all can have equal opportunity to realise their God-given potential.

To its credit, the Coalition Government built upon the foundation of inclusionary democracy, and has been making moves to make this realised fully. President David Granger has reminded on many occasions that it was the PNC/R that was instrumental in the establishment of an inclusionary five-party Partnership for National Unity (APNU) in June 2011. He said the APNU, in turn, entered into the Cummingsburg Accord in February 2015 with the Alliance For Change (AFC), which, when combined (APNU+AFC), won the 2015 elections. “The PNC/R, together with its political and civil partners, remains committed to the multi-party coalition, bound together by the Cummingsburg Accord to constructive dialogue with the political parliamentary opposition, and with civil society to strengthen the practice of ‘inclusionary democracy’; to the ideals of coalition politics, and to the broader aspiration of national unity; to perfecting our incipient system of shared governance, in the belief that the coalition parties are better together than apart,” President Granger said at the PNCR leadership congress back in 2018. It is through inclusionary democracy that Guyanese will indeed receive unquestionable benefits in every area of life, and will allow for the deployment of broad-based expertise in nation-building.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_06_2020

–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