As the National Recount enters its final few days, the PPP lead over the incumbent APNU+AFC has been cut by more than half with close to three hundred more ballot boxes to be counted.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_05_2020

…GECOM commissioner says electoral process has been breached
…says credibility of polls has to do with whether system was corrupted or not

ELECTIONS Commissioner Vincent Alexander said there is clear evidence that Guyana’s General and Regional Elections were compromised, as he cited cases in which unscrupulous people voted in the place of persons who were either dead or out of the country when the elections were held on March 2.

“Now the fact of the matter is that where we’re at, there is proof that the system has been breached; it has been breached,” Alexander told reporters on Thursday at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC), even as he explained that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that there are persons on the Official List of Electors (OLEs), who were out of the country on polling day, but have been marked off as having voted.

One such person is Adler Bynoe of Werk-en-Rust, Georgetown. Bynoe was listed among 172 persons whom the Commissioner of Police and Chief Immigration Officer, Leslie James confirmed were out of the jurisdiction on Elections Day, and according to the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) were marked off on the OLE as having voted.

In a letter to the Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh on Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Bynoe confirmed that had been out of the jurisdiction as indicated by the chief immigration officer, and therefore could not have voted. “I can confirm that as a citizen of Guyana, GECOM duly registered me as an elector and my name appeared on GECOM’s Official List of Electors for the 2020 General and Regional Elections. Further, I can confirm that I am usually resident in Guyana, although I was out of the jurisdiction on Elections Day,” Bynoe wrote.

Bynoe made it known that he is not a part of any scheme to perpetrate electoral fraud. “I reject any contention that I may have supported electoral fraud,” Bynoe made clear while “seeking confirmation from GECOM as to whether or not someone did vote on my behalf without my permission to do so.”

To date, APNU+AFC has cited more than 1,200 such cases in which persons are alleged to have voted in the place of electors who were out of Guyana. While Bynoe has confirmed that he was out of the jurisdiction on March 2, other individuals, who are reportedly listed on the list provided to GECOM by the commissioner of police, are alleging that they were present in the country and therefore exercised their franchise.

But Alexander, while emphasising that there is scope for reconciliation and correlation, reminded media operatives that the list was submitted to the police commissioner by GECOM based on APNU+AFC’s contention. “A list was presented, and that list was presented in keeping with the allegation that here are persons whose serial numbers were identified in the workstations who have been voted for,” he explained. He further explained that once a serial number is called out by a political party at the level of the workstation, verification takes place to ascertain whether or not a person’s name has been ticked off as having voted.

“The APNU+AFC verified the serial numbers that were ticked off. Anybody who is involved in the election process verifying a serial number, can go to a source document, and verify the names. That’s a fact, this is not something to be argued; this is a fact. My construct is based on fact, my construct is not an imagination, my construct is based on fact, irrefutable fact,” the elections commissioner reasoned.

In addition to the provisions of Lists of Electors who were out of the jurisdiction on Elections Day, APNU+AFC has submitted a number of death certificates for persons who reportedly have been marked off on the OLE as having voted as well. Further to that, the APNU+AFC highlighted a number of other irregularities such as missing poll books, Certificates of Employment, OLEs, Oaths of Identity and an alarming number of unstamped or incorrectly stamped ballots, which have been deemed rejected.

These irregularities have been included in Observation Reports, which will be summarised by Electoral District and submitted to the elections commission along with the tabulated votes for deliberation in accordance with the gazetted Order.

“The chairman was very pellucid previously that evidence must be produced; and if evidence has been produced then there could be no choice but to see if the evidence justifies the allegation,” the commissioner said.

Questioned whether the magnitude of the irregularities would be the determining factor, Alexander said not necessarily. “I don’t think the issue of credibility is merely an issue of comparison of numbers; the issue of credibility has to do with whether the system was corrupted or not, and so therefore my measurement, my yardstick is not to compare a margin between parties, my yardstick is to ask the question, is there evidence that this process has been corrupted, and if it has been corrupted, can we declare it credible”? he explained.

Safeguards

But were there enough safeguards in place to prevent electoral fraud? According to Alexander, the electoral system, as it is, has loopholes that cannot be ignored. The commissioner pointed to his earlier calls for house-to-house registration to be conducted so as to generate a National Register of Registrants (NRR) from which the Preliminary List of Electors and Official List of Electors are extracted. Guyana, he posited, went into the 2020 General and Regional Elections with a bloated list.

“I was one of the advocates for a new list because in my humble opinion, if you have a bloated list, and not withstanding what some people are saying, we do have a bloated list. The mere mathematics of population of 750,000, a school population of 250,000 persons, cannot allow you to have a list of 661,000 persons, so we have a bloated list; that is beyond question; that is beyond reason,” he reasoned.

The commissioner contended that a bloated List of Electors creates a platform for persons to cheat the electoral system. “My disposition was that once you have a bloated list, then you are providing a platform for the possibility of the human factor to invade the process; the human factor I meant to be, and still mean to be, how would biased human beings who are part of the system seek to manipulate that situation,” Alexander explained.

He added that the country’s demography is also a contributing factor. “My argument was and is, and this has nothing to do with any particular party, it has to do with the reality of society, that if you have that demography, and you have a bloated list, then you are providing for an opportunity for things, untoward to happen,” he said.

These loop holes, he posited, have been alluded to by political parties in the past, particularly during court actions and therefore cannot be ignored, simply because they were party agents within polling stations on Elections Day. “These safeguards not perfect or absolute, and what you have to perfect is not just the safeguards but the entire system, and the extent to which we have a bloated list, the system remains imperfect, and allows for certain demography, and the human factor to impact the system,” he said.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_05_2020

Two hundred and forty-three (243) ballot hons from Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica) are left to be processed by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Secretariat as the National Recount of the votes cast at the March 2020 General and Regional Elections come to a close. 

Today, al I. 12 workstations at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC) will be assigned to the country’s largest electoral district. Region Four has a total of 879 Ballot Boxes, and already, more than 72 percent of the boxes have been processed, in addition to all of the boxes from U1e other nine (9) Electoral Districts – Region One (Barima-Waini), Region Two ( Pomeroon-Supenaam), Region Three (Essequibo Islands-West Demerara), Region Five (Mahaica-Ber­bice), Region Six (East Ber­bice-Corentyne), Region Seven (Cuyuni-Mazaruni), Region Eight (Potaro-Siparuni), Region Nine (Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo) and Region 10 (Upper De­merara-Berbice). In total, votes within 2096 ballot boxes have been recounted. 

On Thursday, Day 30 of the National Recount, the last two boxes from Regions Six and IO were counted, in addition to 81 ballot boxes from Region Four. In total, 2,063 Statements of Recount (SORs) have been tabulated for the General Elections and 2,068 SORs for the Re­gional Elections. 

When asked on Thursday, whether the Elections Secretariat is well on its way to complete the recount of votes ahead of ex- tended (June 13), deadline, Commissioner Alexander told reporters, he doubts it. “The gazette deadline in the amendments is the 13th of June; we are now on I y counting District Four, all the other Districts for all intents and purposes have been concluded, subject to the presentation of the re- port with the observation reporters for the purpose of determining the credibility of those counts,” Alexander told reporters. 

The amended order out- lines the procedure to be employed, once a report of the recount is submitted to the Elections Commission by the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield. The amended order states: “The Commission shall, after deliberating on the report at Paragraph 12, determine whether it should request the Chief Election Officer to use the data compiled in accordance with Paragraph 12 as the basis for the submission of a report under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act, Cap I :03, pro- vided that the Commission shall, no later than three (3) days after receiving the report, make the declaration of the results of the final credible count of the elections held on the 2nd day of March 2020.”

According to Paragraph 12 of the Order, the matrices for the recount of the I 0 Electoral Districts must be tabulated by the Chief Elections Officer, and a report submitted to the Elections Commission, together with a summary of the Observation Reports for each District. In a previous interview, Alexander had explained that, in accordance with the amended order, the Chief Elections Officer is required to submit his Report on the National Recount no later than June 13.

He noted that once the report is deliberated upon by the Elections Commission, it will determine whether the Chief Election Officer should use the data to compile a final report for the declaration of the results.

Commissioner Alexander explained that during the deliberation on the report submitted on the recount, the Elections Commission will confirm or negate whether persons voted in the place of the dead or individuals who were out of the jurisdiction on E-Day, in addition to a number of other anomalies that have surfaced since the commencement of the recount.

But Elections Commissioner Sase Gunraj, in a separate interview, had offered a slightly different explanation, which suggested that the results of the elections ought to be declared three days after the June 13 deadline. “Finally, the Order specifies the time within which a declaration has to be made by the Guyana Elections Commission of the final results of the elections Commission, together with a held on the 2nd of March, 2020, and that date is no later than three days from the 13th day of June, 2020,” Gunraj had said.

While Alexander, in his discourse, indicated that the Commission will deliberate on, among other things, the Observation Reports ahead of any declaration, Gunraj has long maintained that GECOM has no such authority.

·’GECOM has taken no decision; the Commission has taken absolutely no decision in so far as it relates to treating with any of the issues that have arisen, or may arise during this recount process,” Gunraj contended. To date, more than 1,500 ballot boxes have been processed from a total of2,339.”

The National Recount, which commenced on May 6, 2020, is being executed under Article 162 of the Constitution, and Section 22 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act under the supervision of the Elections Commission, based on an agreement reached between president David Granger and Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo following the intervention of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_05_2020

This weekend the Caribbean community observes the 47^th Anniversary of the Treaty of Chaguaramas which established CARICOM. That treaty was signed at a pivotal period in the history of the Anglophone Caribbean. It came in the wake of the Black Power Movement which had raised the question of racial equality in our newly independent and soon to be independent countries. It also came in the wake of the collapse of the Federation a decade before. The failure of the Federation was a severe blow to the aspirations of the integration movement as it raised the question of whether our subregion possessed the capacity to move beyond its insularity to embrace a Pan-Caribbean ethos in the post-colonial era.

By 1973 it had become pellucid that it was difficult for small post-plantation political economies to survive as stand-alone entities in a world that was hostile to smallness and self-determination. It was that realisation that pushed the then leaders to reach for a balance between their individual sovereignty and the imperatives of smallness. Jamaica, whose referendum had set in train the breakup of the Federation was now under new leadership and took its place as one of the original signatories of the treaty.

So here we are almost five decades since the birth of CARICOM. There is indeed much to celebrate. First, the community has survived the many challenges to integration. It survived the ideological turmoil of the 1970s and 1980s when the Caribbean was a site of Cold War contestation. The Grenada revolution of 1979-83 was a novelty in the sub-region; it tested CARICOM’s tolerance for ideological diversity. In the end the revolution imploded, and America invaded Grenada with the help of some leaders acting in their individual capacities. It took some time for the movement to regain its equilibrium, but in the final analysis it survived.

By the turn of the 1990s, the world had changed. There was a transition from Cold War to Globalisation which brought new challenges for small countries. The consolidation of global capital by the large countries meant that the Caribbean had to bring its integration praxis in line with these developments. The consensus was that CARICOM had to pursue both a deepening and widening of the movement. This led to an acceptance of membership from beyond the Anglophone Caribbean. Hence the membership of Suriname and Haiti.

This broadening of the membership was followed by two important institutional shifts that sought to deepen the movement. First, there was the movement towards the creation of a single market and economy known as CSME. The CSME led to freer movement of goods, services, and people. This was a massive breakthrough that went to the heart of the quest for a common market which was the initial objective of CARICOM. Today citizens of the region can move from country to country without visas and they can invest in any country across the region.

As is the case with intra-regional changes in economics, there was need to regionalise other institutions. So, it was inevitable that a regional court came into play in 2004 when the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was launched. This proved more challenging than the CSME as the vast majority of member states stayed out of the court citing the fear that it would come under the political influence of political interests. After a decade and a half only Barbados, Belize, Dominica, and Guyana have joined.

Ironically as the community observes its 47th Anniversary, the fears of the majority of member states seem to have taken center stage. Both the outgoing and incoming chairs of CARICOM have taken more than a fraternal interest in Guyana’s ongoing electoral impasse. Not since the Grenada saga in 1983 have regional leaders so inserted themselves in the internal affairs of a member state.  This could have serious consequences for CARICOM going forward. As we write this editorial, the CCJ is being tested in a case on Guyana over which it has no jurisdiction. At the heart of the case is where does regionalism end and sovereignty begin.

Already there are calls among Guyanese for the country to leave CARICOM. Others are call for CARICOM to expel Guyana if one of the electoral contestants is declared the winner. So, it is not a comfortable anniversary.  The expectation that membership of the CCJ would increase may have been dealt a severe blow. And those who have advocated for a closer political alliance within the region would be sorely disappointed at the handling of the Guyana situation. When one adds to that the fallout over what to do with the regional airline, LIAT, these are indeed anxious times for CARICOM.

Not for the first time, the integration movement is on trial. How will it end? Only time will tell. But as we await the outcome, we can congratulate ourselves that we have survived. Integration of sovereign states is not an easy undertaking, even among those who calypsonian Black Stalin reminded in his epic “Caribbean Man came  “from the same place/ that make the same trip/ on the same ship.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-5-2020

By Lincoln Lewis
THE Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was established in 2005 as the judicial branch of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) with original and appellate jurisdictions. The former jurisdiction attends to matters pertaining to the Treaty of Chaguaramas (the establishment of CARICOM) and the latter as a member-state court of last resort for civil and criminal matters. The establishment of this Court augurs well for the peoples of the Region quest for self-determination.

In its 15th year, the Court records four member-states out of the 15 member-states and five associate member-states in the 20 countries grouping. The participating countries are Barbados, Belize, Dominica, and Guyana, the first three extricating from the United Kingdom Privy Council as their court of last resort; Guyana having done so since 1970 when we became a Republic.  Instructively, Trinidad and Tobago, where the Court is headquartered, is not a member.

Presently, all eyes are on the CCJ. In its hands it holds resolution to the election impasse and the sovereign right of Guyanese to elect their President. The President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana has dual functions. The office holder is Head of State and Government, and our Constitution vests the power solely in the hands of Guyanese on matters pertaining to his/her election. This is not by accident, given the responsibility of the office, and duty to the nation and citizenry.

Our Constitution expressly states, “Sovereignty belongs to the people who exercise it through their representatives and the democratic organs established by or under this Constitution” (Article 9). And whereas the President is an elected representative, given the portfolios of the holder, special attention is given to qualification needed to hold this office, including approaching the court for clarity surrounding his/her election.

As per Article 177, which deals with the ‘Election of the President,’ it is the “Court of Appeal that shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to the validity of an election of a President in so far as that question depends on the qualification of any person for election or the interpretation of this Constitution; and any decision of that Court under this paragraph shall be final.”

Under the extant Article, on the 22nd June, the Court of Appeal, by majority decision, ruled on the issue of valid votes to elect the President. This ruling has been challenged and is now before the CCJ seeking leave to hear the case.

The argument made to approach the CCJ as an “appeal of right” enshrined in our Caribbean Court of Justice Act Cap 3:07, Section 6 (c) ‘Jurisdiction of the Court’ allows that “An appeal shall lie to the Court from decisions of the Court of Appeal as of right– in any civil or criminal proceedings which involve a question as to the interpretation of the Constitution.”

Whereas the right to appeal in a court of law is universal and must be respected, such right is authourised by the prescribed law. Article 9 of the Constitution assures that “This Constitution is the supreme law of Guyana and, if any other law is inconsistent with it, that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

A lot was said at the CCJ sitting last Wednesday to determine whether the Court can hear the matter. We were subjected to listening to issues that had no bearing on the Court’s instruction, yet these were facilitated and entertained by the Judges. This is not a matter only of interest to Guyanese but to other participating member-states and peoples of the Region. In a region, even as we pursue self-determination and any step in this direction ought to be welcomed, we are also dealing with self-doubt and suspicion as to our ability to set aside partisanship, familial association, etc, and dispassionately dispense with justice.
There is real concern that our courts could be used, and have been used, to make political, not legal decisions; that judges could arrogate to themselves the authority of legislatures (making laws) rather than be interpreters of the law (judiciary). The CCJ is vested with the authority to make legal not political decisions. It must insulate itself from the noise of local and external forces who desire to carry the Court in any direction outside of its scope, mandate, and the issue before it.

The CCJ must leave the politicking for the politicians and those with vested self-interest. This case is not only of import to Guyana but the entire region where many have not signed on, some have voted not to, and others remain skeptical. It will be the litmus test for those who stand on the sidelines. Whatever decision the Court arrives at if there is any inference such is not premised on law, the CCJ will not be deemed credible in the eyes of the people. This would be a blow to the entire Caribbean integration movement and the peoples’ quest for self-determination, judicial and political.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-5-2020

…but PPP lawyers want court to break the law

By Adam Harris

ON Wednesday the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is expected to hand down its ruling on whether it has jurisdiction in the action brought by Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo.
The two are challenging the ruling handed down by the Guyana Court of Appeal in the action brought by Eslyn David.

Ms David moved to the court to seek a declaration on what is a valid vote. The court ruled by a majority that the words “All votes cast” mean “all valid votes cast.”

Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield tabulated his final report to the Guyana Elections Commission, using the ruling of the Court of Appeal.

No sooner had he done this than Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo moved to the Caribbean Court of Justice to nullify Mr. Lowenfield’s report.

They went further. They got a lawyer to file private criminal charges against Mr Lowenfield for malfeasance in public office. They contended that Mr Lowenfield’s report was fraudulently concocted.

This reported filing got wide publicity, which the PPP wanted. Up to Friday one newspaper aligned to the PPP reported that Mr. Lowenfield was heading to court for 09:00hrs.
I understand that they went to court without even serving the writ on Lowenfield; it had to be a publicity stunt. They know where Lowenfield lives; they know that he would be at the Guyana Elections Commission, but they could not find him.

Meanwhile, the Caribbean Court of Justice met on June 30, last, to decide whether it had jurisdiction. That meeting which lasted some seven hours made me think about a man coming to buy my cow. He then set about asking me about my wife and my son.

If I expected to hear arguments about jurisdiction I was mistaken. I heard the court actually debate the motion by Jagdeo and Ali. It went further: there was a plaintive plea by Senior Counsel Ralph Hari Ramkarran.

Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran, in summing up his submission, made a bizarre appeal when he exhorted the CCJ judges to “take this material before you and PRONOUNCE on the elections results and bring this matter to a close once and for all.”

He asked the CCJ to order Lowenfield to withdraw his report. I am unaware of the power of the CCJ to accede to that request by Ramkarran.

This is outrageous and shocking from a senior counsel. However, it illustrates the desperation of the PPP’s case. The CCJ is not GECOM. The CCJ cannot PRONOUNCE and declare a winner of Guyana’s elections.

There is a clear matter of jurisdiction that is before the CCJ which is what it has to rule on, not PRONOUNCE on the Guyana elections as Ramkarran is urging them to do.
The PPP’s case before the CCJ is weak in law, relies on emotion, irrelevant hypothesis and seeks to inject a moral imperative.

The CCJ is not empowered or authorised to consider any of these and MUST strictly consider only the law and confine itself to the law.

Another PPP attorney (and we need to deliberately bundle all the PPP and small parties into one by referring to them as ‘PPP attorneys’) made a vulgar and brazen appeal to the CCJ, pressing the court to act outside its remit and outside the laws of Guyana.

He said, “This court (the CCJ) cannot simply say we are minded to deal with the legal issues. I ask this court to take a more broad purposive approach to its deliberations.”
This is absurd and ludicrous. A lawyer is asking the court, which must uphold the law, to act outside the law.

This is not a legal argument, this is wild, reckless, ‘rum shop’ gyaff.
Queen’s Counsel Reginald Armour, John Jeremie and Justin Simon along with Attorney General Basil Williams presented cogent, compelling arguments for the Coalition team.
They cited case law from various jurisdictions, a previous ruling of the CCJ and the view of a sitting CCJ Judge, Justice Winston Anderson.

Justice Anderson, according to Queen’s Counsel Armour, said that “if issues cannot be appealed to the CCJ, the CCJ cannot consider them.

“If the CCJ cannot consider them, then they cannot be included in the building blocks of the Court’s jurisprudence. It is that simple…”

QC Jeremie pointed out to the CCJ that the PPP was asking it “to defy the expressed terms of the Guyanese laws and the CCJ agreement” and to act beyond and outside of its remit which the CCJ clearly cannot do.

Queen’s Counsel Simon also submitted to the CCJ, citing the Laws of Guyana and the CCJ Act, that there can be no question that the Guyana Court of Appeal is the final court of jurisdiction and that there can be no appeal to the CCJ as the CCJ lacks jurisdiction.
Attorney General Williams submitted to the court the widespread fraud which was uncovered in the recount process.

The fraud included voter impersonation (dead people voting, migrated people voting), missing poll books, missing polling documents, unstamped ballots, more votes than electors, missing oaths of identity and other irregularities.
This case is plain and simple about Guyana’s sovereignty and Guyana’s right to settle its affairs in Guyana.

The Caribbean Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction over this matter.
The Guyana Court of Appeal is the final court of jurisdiction on this matter and it has already delivered a ruling.

We await the CCJ’s ruling. The CCJ can only rule that it has no jurisdiction.
The GECOM Chair has to make the declaration. The CEO has already submitted his report based on the recount and the GECOM Chair must make the declaration based on the CEO’s report, nothing else.

But strange things happened during the last hearing on Wednesday.
The CCJ went beyond its stated mandate to determine jurisdiction. It entertained the actual appeal by the PPP. That was deliberate and prejudicial to the Coalition.
The CCJ constantly interrupted and disrupted the flow of the attorneys for the Coalition, but spared the attorneys for the PPP. That was deliberate and prejudicial to the
Coalition.

If the CCJ overrides and/or breaches or amends the Guyana Constitution to exercise jurisdiction, it will be the death of the CCJ. Members who are sceptical in joining will be more sceptical and possibly never join.

The CCJ is aware that the Privy Council, its predecessor in Apex Court, over time, refrained from hearing election appeals. It is also aware that one of its own judges, Justice Anderson, stated that when Barbados, Guyana and Belize delinked from the Privy Council and joined the CCJ, that system of the Privy Council refraining from elections petitions was also transferred to the CCJ. Yet, the CCJ went beyond the jurisdiction point and heard matters relating to the unappealable appeal.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-5-2020

– UK Professor says decision of the Court of Appeal is final

By Svetlana Marshall
THE Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ought to reject the People’s Progressive Party Civic’s (PPP/C’s) appeal on the grounds that it has no jurisdiction, Queen’s Counsel, Dr. Richard Wilson said, while explaining that Article 177 (4) of the Constitution grants the Court of Appeal exclusive jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution with respect to the election of a President, and any decision made there under is final.

Dr. Wilson, a visiting Professor of Law at the Coventry University in United Kingdom, offered his legal opinion on the case – Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo v. Deslyn David and the Chief Elections Officer and others – in a document seen by the Guyana Chronicle.
Ali and Jagdeo, through their battery of lawyers led by Trinidad’s Senior Counsel, Douglas Mendes, are asking the CCJ to set aside a decision of the Court of Appeal that the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b) should be interpreted to mean “more valid votes are asked.” But while the Court of Appeal relied on Article 177 (4) to rule in the case brought by David, Jagdeo and Ali, through their legal team, are contending that Court of Appeal did not make a decision under Article 177 (4) because it had no jurisdiction to do so.

But in the document seen by the Guyana Chronicle, Dr. Wilson contended that Ali and Jagdeo are wrong. “As a matter of construction of the Constitution, the Court of Appeal plainly had original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine the meaning of the words “if more votes are cast” as provided in Article 177 (2) (b),” the professor said.

In justifying his position, the Queen’s Counsel drew distinction between Article 163 and Article 177 (4), and in doing so, noted that the ‘plain meaning rule’ ought to be applied by a court construing legislative provisions where there is nothing to modify, alter or qualify those provisions. Notably, the Constitution under Article 163 gives the High Court exclusive jurisdiction to determine any question regarding the qualification for election as a member of the National Assembly and equally important, whether an election was lawfully conducted or its result affected by any unlawful act or omission. No mention, Dr. Wilson pointed out, was made on the election of a President.

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

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

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

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

Noting that the Constitution must be viewed as whole, the professor said that both Articles 163 and 177 are subject to the plain meaning rule of statutory interpretation. He iterated that under Article 177 (4), the Court of Appeal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine questions pertaining to the validity of an election of a President in so far as that question depends on the interpretation of the Constitution and not the High Court.

He submitted that should the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction be removed, there would be gaps in the Constitution. “Consequently, [a] for it to be held that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the originating application as to the interpretation of the words “of more votes are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b), where [b] it is clear that the High Court does not have such jurisdiction under Article 163, would [c] create a lacunae in the Constitution. That clearly, cannot have been the legislative intention,” Dr. Wilson reasoned.

He posited, in his opinion piece, that the court, in interpreting the legislation, is duty bound to give a legislation a meaning that would render the legislation effective.

In offering his legal opinion, in the document, the Queen’s Counsel endorsed the arguments submitted by Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel Reginald Armour, who is representing the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Representative, Joseph Harmon. Armour, last Wednesday, told the court that the supremacy of the Constitution must be respected even as he maintained that the decision of the Court of Appeal under Article 177 (4) is final, and therefore, cannot be appealed.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-5-2020

Dear Editor
THE Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is currently deliberating on the most important non-case that it has ever had to hear. The leaders of Guyana’s main opposition, the People’s Progressive Party, have brought an appeal to the CCJ seeking to have a Guyana Court of Appeal decision overturned.

The matter is straightforward and need not detain the CCJ for all of a week. It has no jurisdiction and ought to so rule. There are some disturbing signs arising out of the seven-hour-long hearing on Thursday, however. From the (i) composition of the bench hearing the case, (ii) the posture of the President and judges, (iii) the curious insistence on exploring irrelevant ‘hypothesis’ (which the judges themselves described as “absurd”), (iv) the emotive and preposterous pleadings of the PPP’s attorneys urging the CCJ to “pronounce” on the election results (which it has no authority whatsoever to so do), it would appear as though the CCJ is attempting to manufacturer an artificial conundrum for itself, apparently designed to grandstand and, to rely on Caribbean colloquialism, ‘pampazette.’

The dilemma that the President of the CCJ Mr. Justice Adrian Saunders and his colleague judges appear to be engineering is one of jurisdiction, where it is settled and certain in law that it has none. Guyana’s constitution, and its CCJ Act of 2004, enshrined in law, make it clear that the Guyana Court of Appeal is the final court in matters related to “the validity of an election of a President” and “shall have exclusive jurisdiction” which “shall be final.”
In law, the word ‘shall’ is rarely used without purposeful intent. Notwithstanding such a definitive position, the PPP has nonetheless appealed to the CCJ. The CCJ on July 1 heard the appeal and is to rule, in the first instance, whether it has jurisdiction to pronounce on the appeal. It is the widespread view, including of the PPP’s own lead counsel in the case, that the CCJ lacks jurisdiction. Dr. Francis Alexis QC, the pre-eminent constitutional expert in the Caribbean, in an opinion, was absolute. “The application for special leave to appeal to the CCJ should clearly be refused,” Dr. Alexis advised.

Beyond the actual case however, there is even more at stake. The very existence and future of the CCJ hangs in the balance, and by extension, CARICOM and Caribbean unity are threatened. And this at the regrettable historic juncture of Britain’s bitter withdrawal from the European Union, the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organisation and the disintegration of LIAT. Insularity, bred by extremism and exploited by influential men of deficient judgment, is becoming a global disease which may well infect the Caribbean if the CCJ attempts to act beyond its remit.

At a time when the CCJ is actively seeking to bring more CARICOM countries into its fold, it must be cautious that it does not act in a reckless manner to estrange and disengage those which it now has within its realm. The CCJ came into existence in 2005 and to date, only four Caribbean territories have acceded to it being their final appellate court for civil and criminal matters – Barbados, Belize, Dominica and Guyana. In each case, each country has reserved matters, such as the one now brought by the PPP before the CCJ, for their own local appellate court as the final arbiter. Trinidad and Tobago, where the CCJ is located, still maintains the UK’s Privy Council as its final court of appeal. The vast majority of CARICOM countries do not recognise the CCJ as their final appellate jurisdiction. The CCJ, in form and function, is eager to bring more countries into its remit and the movement to accomplish this has made some progress.

What, in all likelihood, will obliterate that progress is if the CCJ delivers an extra-judicial ruling which ignores the constitution and laws of Guyana and the CCJ’s own founding principles and trespasses in legal territory where it has no jurisdiction.

Such action, will, very likely, result in Caribbean countries eyeing deeper involvement with the CCJ, casting a cynical eye, recoiling and withdrawing any intention to come under the CCJ’s umbrella. It is not the future of the people of Guyana which is on trial at, or in the hands of the CCJ – that matter has already been constitutionally decided to finality in Guyana. It is in fact the future of the CCJ itself which is on trial and in the hands of President Saunders and the CCJ justices.

The sage counsel of Reginald Armour, who also appeared before them in the case ought to be heeded by the CCJ. Said the learned Queen’s Counsel, “[i]t is an opportunity for your Lordship (the CCJ) when you give judgment in this matter and you decline jurisdiction, that I exhort you to do, you may yet find an opportunity in your judgment to echo the wish of Justice (Winston) Anderson to ask your member sovereign states to amend the agreement to give you the jurisdiction which you now do not have.” Over to President Saunders and his colleagues. We await their ruling to see whether they will act on principle and within the law or they go rogue and irreversibly lead the CCJ to perish. The people of Guyana will survive this, the CCJ may not.

Regards
Imran Khan

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-5-2020

… four WGEC commissioners disassociate themselves from statement on Mottley

FOUR commissioners of the Women and Gender Equality Commission have distanced them selves from a statement purportedly issued by that body condemning attacks on former chairman of Caricom, Prime Minister Mia Mottley.

“We wish to refer to an article published in the June 29, 2020 issue of the Stabroek News under the captioned “Women and Gender Equality Commission condemns attacks against Mottley” We wish to let it be know that the WGEC comprise Commissioners representing various organisations within Guyana and the issuance of this statement was definitely not a Commission’s decision since we were not consulted at any time,” the commissioners Karen VanSluytman-Corbin, Guyana Trade Union Congress/WAC; Nicole Cole, Culture/Ethnic; Ernestine Barker-Logan, Regional Women’s Affairs Committee; and Debra Henry of Professional Women, said in a terse statement.

The statement said” “For many Guyanese and Caribbean women and men- Mia Mottley is an exemplary Caribbean leader. She is deserving of our respect:’  It added that it was at the invitation of both President David Granger and opposition leader Bharrat Jagdeo that CARICOM, led by Mottley in her capacity as its Chairperson, offered its assistance in the form of an Independent High-Level Team to observe the Recount process. The agreement between the two political leaders was cemented in an Aide Memoire. Both the president and opposition leader agreed to abide by credible and transparent results of the Recount process.”

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the CARICOM Observer Report on the Guyana Elections and the Recount process, there is no need what soever for the insults being levelled against Mia Mottley, who is standing by tbt Report,” the commission noted. Mottley bad come under fire for alleged prejudicial statements about Guyana’s elections and also bad attacked the Chief Elections Officer for his report that tallied valid votes. “We can agree or disagree with the Elections results in Guyana which are always contentious – the 2020 Elections are particularly so.

However, the leaders of both major parties agreed to have CARICOM here to do a specific job, which they did,” the commission said. “Let us be civil to each other in Guyana -even in contentions times and let us be civil to our Caribbean Community leaders and peoples even in times of contention between us.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-5-2020

Dear Editor.
IT seems that current wisdom dictates that if you see someone attempting to break into your home, you must wait and allow him or her to do so, then allow the thief to get away before you call the police. Do not call the police to report that you have evidence showing that someone tried or is trying to steal your money or other valuables from your home. Wait until you have lost your valuables before calling the cops.

If that sounds ridiculous, it’s because it is. But that is precisely what the PPP/C expects from APNU+AFC supporters. That is what two prime ministers want APNU+AFC supporters to do. And that is what the Private Sector Commission in Guyana wants APNU+AFC supporters to do.

They insist that APNU+AFC ignore the evidence of electoral fraud; allow GECOM Chairman Claudette Singh to let the PPP steal the elections; count all the doctored votes and swear in the doctor as President. Then, APNU+AFC should file a petition to the High Court to complain that the elections were stolen. In their minds, that is how the process must work.
Indeed, there was a time not very long ago when Guyana operated under that principle of lawlessness. As a reminder to some, during the last elections held under the PPP/C administration, Crum-Ewing was not permitted to exercise his lawful right to protest the then attorney general; he was killed. Shot in cold blood. During that 2015 election campaign, Fazil Azeez, former radio announcer invited then Candidate David Granger to give a speech to Muslims at a mosque. The following day someone walked up to Azeez and shot him. And some may recall the election petition case in 1997. The ‘newly elected’ Janet Jagan proudly tore up a court order in front of television cameras. The High Court vitiated the results, but the election theft nonetheless succeeded. These are just a few reminders of the erosion of the rule of law taking place during the PPP/C administration, and likely to resume should that party snatch power again.

In their attempt to steal the 2020 elections using an improved 1997 playbook, the PPP/C demanded that the outdated, bloated electoral list be used. An unsuspecting GECOM chairman allowed herself to be manipulated into acquiescence. That list contains the names of tens of thousands who died or emigrated during the past 10 years. That list allowed massive rigging by a party that has not won a general election since 1997.

Although no one expected this to happen, someone or several persons impersonated thousands – not just a few, but thousands of those who were not here to vote because they are dead or had emigrated. Under normal circumstances, those fraudulent votes would not have been discovered, and the PPP/C’s theft would have succeeded. But as it turned out, President Granger and Bharrat Jagdeo agreed to a nationwide recount and audit of the election. That recount and audit allowed the boxes to be opened before the election results were declared. Many irregularities were then discovered and exposed; the PPP/C was caught attempting to steal the elections before that party could be declared the winner. Understandably, that made them and some special interest groups very unhappy to the point that they issued threats to those who attempted to uphold the law.

What must APNU+AFC supporters do? The PPP/C and the special-interest groups want them to allow the theft to succeed and then afterwards, to file a petition at the High Court. GECOM Chairman Claudette Singh, presumably under tremendous duress, attempted to push for that approach. But a courageous APNU+AFC candidate is trying to foil the most audacious attempt to steal the elections. It seems clear that APNU+AFC supporters are not ready to abide by the PPP/C’s rules or to give in to foreign special interests. They do not believe that the crime must be allowed to succeed while they stand by and watch.

The Guyana Court of Appeal agreed that only the valid votes must be counted. Yet, foreign people are pressing for, some even demanding that the fraudulent votes be counted; claiming that they are calling for democracy to be preserved. I doubt that those who want dead people’s votes to be counted in Guyana would want the same brand of democracy for their respective country. In their minds, APNU+AFC supporters do not deserve fairness at the elections.

Meanwhile, the PPP/C asked the Caribbean Court of Justice to overturn the Guyana Court of Appeal decision as they continue to press for fraudulent votes to be counted. The CCJ will make its ruling, whether with bias or not, no one knows. Then, a final decision by GECOM is expected, and that decision will be based largely on whether retired Judge Claudette Singh believes that an exposed electoral crime should succeed. She will decide whether Guyana continues as a law-and-order nation, or whether we revert to the days when the clouds of death squads and “phantoms” terrorised the Guyanese people. Let us hope that she puts Guyana First.

Respectfully
Max Mohamed

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-5-2020