Dear Editor,
THE very strong and captivating statements made by the Coalition that is now in the public’s domain concerning the credibility of the March 2, 2020 elections, coupled with the insurmountable evidences provided to the Guyana Elections Commission has certainly begun to worry the opposition parties of the PPP/C.

Most of the camouflage small parties of the PPP, and many of their financial contributors are concerned that their collective plot is failing, and all of Guyana will know of their intended heist of our democracy through fraud.

Mr. Editor, it is quite evident that PPP/C and its cohorts really don’t want the truth, of their systematic and methodical rigging of the people’s will to be exposed. The PPP’s new Jadgeo version and likely successor, Anil Nandlall, whose popularity threatens their party’s maximum leader, speaks about court actions that will likely come against GECOM, if the attempt to ascertain the truth and legitimacy of the Coalition’s claims.

Is this chap for real? Is the PPP serious about good governance and truth? Has their unquenchable desire for power at all cost distorted their conscience and decency? Mr. Editor, the Coalition has provided evidence of 1,261 persons who voted in the place of migrants, while 315 Certificates of Employment were missing, in addition to 284 poll books.
Additionally, it alleged that 143 persons who had no form of identification, voted without taking an Oath of Identity, while 40 persons voted in the place of “dead persons”. At the time, there were reportedly 40 unstamped ballots and seven missing Official List of Electors (OLEs), hence, the recount is still in process, and more revelations will be unearthed.
Mr. Editor, with all these claims and the hard-core evidence, it means nothing to the PPP/C and its voiceless shell parties. Why is that? Is it because they know what they did? How can it be explained that a large percentage of the Joint Services were deliberately spoiled on a technicality, by not being intermixed and stamped with the six- digit stamp? What is evident is that these occurrences appear more normal in clusters of the PPP support-base. Have you heard the PPP’s military candidate commenting on this very important issue? Why not? It does not fit their narrative.

It is important to note that the PPP’s public display of confidence that is punctuated by their version of the truth and distorted facts, presented by their attention-seeking spokespersons who appear to be in competition to sell themselves as worthy PPP leaders, is nothing more than theatrical performance for the cameras. On the ground, the reality is vastly different.
I have been working at the ACCC, where the national recount is taking place for the past several weeks, and I can assure our supporters and the wider population, local and in the diaspora, that all is not what it appears to be for the PPP; they are literally afraid of this recount and what is being uncovered.

If one were to psycho-analyse and compare the leadership of the PPP who are present daily at the ACCC to their agents in the respective work-stations, one can see two different realities. Jadgeo has been masterful in being able to sell to his leadership, his workers and his supporters a dream of a victory, and even some in the business community and the international community were victims of his deception.

Some, however, with each passing day, are unwillingly waking up. His financiers and all those who were comforted by promises are becoming more and more aware, with our evidences provided and from those working in the tabulation room, getting a front view of the true reality of things, are now taking a different language. Mr. Editor, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the false impression the PPP/C attempts to give of the Chairman of GECOM, the CEO, DCEO and the administrative staff as grossly misleading. The GECOM’s Chairman, Justice Singh, is a woman with regal grace, much strength and tolerance to engage these prolific hypothetical characters who berate her publicly, and in the “absence” of the cameras and their penman, they frequent her office, like spoiled little brats, for God-knows what. It’s mindboggling!

The chairwoman has indeed demonstrated a tower of strength and leadership in the face of unwarranted criticism, abuse and a Judas-like behaviour of these individuals. The question is: Why? Is it because she is not a push-over woman, or it is because her name is Singh?
It appears quite obvious that the PPP expects a certain adherence to their whims and fancies, because of the woman’s ethnicity, hence there unscrupulous, Machiavellian behaviour. This is a woman whose lens is not blurred by race nor ethnicity; she is for principle, truth and justice. Anyone who is honest will accept the view that this strong Guyanese woman has always allowed her actions to be guided by her command knowledge of the law, and her unquestioned integrity and belief in GOD.

The chairman has demonstrated she is her own woman; a strong woman who will not be bullied by anyone; not by any loud-mouth Commissioner who has a forked tongue, and wants to speak on her behalf, nor by any lawyer from any political party who purports to be the font of knowledge of the laws. The majority of Guyanese, local and in the diaspora, have confidence in Justice Singh’s ability to do her work justly. We will continue to pray for her.

In addition, Mr. Editor, the public, and, more specifically, the supporters of the PPP must know that what is being said of the CEO, DCEO and GECOM’s staff, who have felt the brunt of criticism due to the intentional spread of misinformation by the PPP/C, is not the true reflection on the ground. The level of professionalism, guidance and decorum of the secretariat of GECOM, from the janitor to the CEO, is jaw-dropping.

With that said, I am compelled to enquire from Mr. Timothy Jonas, a spokesman for a sub-set party of the PPP/C, how did he come to the conclusion in his very perplexed and discombobulated statement of opinion. I quote, “Now I have no confidence in the secretariat; we know who their members are: CEO is Lowenfield, next one down is Roxanne Myers, the next one down is Hetsberger. I don’t know these people personally; I have seen their actions, I have seen their conduct, I think we all can agree that none of them voted for the PPP,” unquote. Mr Editor, this superior intellectual seems definitely to be a confused individual; he is more interested in the affairs of the PPP/C than the party, ANUG he supposed to be representing. Mr. Editor, I’m reminded of the American literature, the character of Prometheus who speaks the phrase: Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad, in the poem, “The Masque of Pandora” (1875), by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Mr. Editor, in the final analysis, it would be prudent for all of us to allow the recount process to take us wherever those revelations and the substantive evidence may lead. Guyana and the world must know the truth of the depths the PPPC went to steal these elections.

Regards,
Jermaine Figueira

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-3-2020

ON Tuesday (Day 28), votes within 93 ballot boxes were recounted at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC), bringing the total number of processed ballot boxes to 1,929. This means that there are 410 ballot boxes left to be processed by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) as the recount of the votes cast at the March 2 General and Regional Elections comes to a close.

In providing a breakdown, GECOM’s Public Relations Officer (PRO), Yolanda Ward, explained that of the 93 ballot boxes processed on Tuesday, 36 were from Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica), 34 were from Region Six (East Berbice-Corentyne) and 23 from Region 10 (Upper Demerara-Berbice).

There are 12 workstations established at the Conference Centre, and according to Ward, six have been assigned to Region Four – the country’s largest electoral block — while three each have been assigned to Regions Six and 10.

On Monday, Ward had said that the recount is likely to be completed well within its extended timeline – June 13.  “Looking at the rate we have been moving over the past few days, it means that it is likely that we will complete [the recount] within the new duration that we have,” she told reporters on the outskirts of the ACCC.

Notably, votes cast in seven of the 10 Electoral Districts have been recounted, and as such the focus now is on Regions Four, Six and 10.

All the votes from Region One (Barima-Waini), Region Two (Pomeroon-Supenaam), Region Three (Essequibo Islands-West Demerara), Region Five (Mahaica-Berbice), Region Seven (Cuyuni-Mazaruni), Region Eight (Potaro-Siparuni) and Region Nine (Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo) have been recounted.

REGION ONE

Based on the votes recounted for Region One, the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) secured 3,909 votes in the General Elections while the Liberty and Justice Party (LJP) raked in 170, PPP/C 8002, People’s Republic Party 24 and the United Republican Party, six – a total number of 12,111 valid votes cast. According to statistics coming out of GECOM’s Tabulation Centre at the ACCC, there were 328 rejected ballots and 41 spoilt ballots.

In the Regional Elections, the APNU+AFC raked in 3,843 votes while LJP secured 144, the PPP/C, 7, 996 and the URP 77 votes. There were a total of 12, 060 valid votes cast by a total of 12, 440 persons who had presented themselves on March 2 to vote in Region One.

REGION TWO

Meanwhile in Region Two, the APNU+AFC secured 7,340 votes in the General Elections while the PPP/C raked in 18,785 votes. A New and United Guyana (ANUG) received 85 votes, while Change Guyana (CG) 151, LJP 121, PRP 57, The Citizenship Initiative (TCI) 18 and URP 64. In total, there were 26,621 valid votes cast.

For the Regional Elections, the APNU+AFC received 7,290 votes while its primary contender – the PPP/C – secured 18, 755. The smaller parties, Change Guyana (CG) raked in 216 votes while LJP secured 135 and URP 95. There was a total of 26,491 valid voters in the Regional Elections for Region Two.

REGION FIVE

In Region Five, there were a total of 33, 119 valid votes cast in the General Elections of which the APNU+AFC secured 14,502 based on the votes recounted and the PPP/C, 18,326. The remainder of the valid votes went to ANUG – 88, CG –100, PRP – 52, TCI – 22, TMN – 10 and URP – 19. Based on the tabulated figures by GECOM, there were 256 rejected ballots and 61 spoilt ballots.

In the Regional Elections for that Electoral District, there were 33,004 valid votes cast of which the PPP/C secured the highest number with 18, 286 followed by the APNU+AFC with 14, 472. The remainder of the valid votes went to CG – 127, PRP – 59 and URP – 60. There were a total of 374 rejected ballots in the Regional Elections for Region Five.

REGION SEVEN

In Cuyuni-Mazaruni District, the APNU+AFC secured the highest number of votes, securing some 4,813 votes while the PPP/C raked in 3,728 votes in the General Elections. ANUG secured 77 votes, while CG raked in 67, LJP – 884, and the URP – 23. There were a total of 9,592 valid votes cast while 164 were rejected.

For the Regional Elections in Region Seven, the APNU+AFC secured 4,839 votes while the PPP/C received 3,703 votes followed by LJP with 925 votes. URP secured some 62 votes. There were a total of 9,529 valid votes and 227 rejected ballots.

The NATIONAL RECOUNT commenced on May 6 at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre after an Order was gazetted by the Chair of GECOM, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh. Initially, the recount was set for a period of 25 days, however, the Elections Commission, last Friday, amended the Order to facilitate the June 13 extension.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-3-2020

…coalition says persons also did not submit Certificates of Employment

MORE and more anomalies are being unearthed as the recount of the votes cast at the General and Regional Elections progresses.

On Tuesday, as the Elections Secretariat processed a Ballot Box (6346) from the Corriverton Primary School, it was discovered that 10 persons who were not listed on the Official List of Elector (OLE) voted without submitting their Certificates of Employment (COEs). According to the Observation Report that was generated at the level of the workstation, there was a single Certificate of Employment within Ballot Box 6346; however, the Poll Book had no record of it.

The absence of such crucial document, Minister Amna Ally said, amounts to electoral fraud, explaining that if a person’s name is not listed on the OLE at a particular Poll Station, he or she must produce a Certificate of Employment, before they he/she be allowed to vote. “If there is no Certificate of Employment, then something went wrong,” Minister Ally said, while noting that such irregularity cannot be ignored. According to her, there is a clear trend.

“This is being repetitive. A lot of it is being found across the country, and particularly in Region Six. It is happening primarily in the PPP/C support area,” Minister Ally told the Guyana Chronicle. Minister Ally is a senior functionary with the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) coalition.

Additionally, it was found that of the 21 Oaths of Identity that were in the Ballot Box, only 11 were recorded in the Poll Book. Ally told Guyana Chronicle that there have been cases in which the Oaths of Identity were missing, in addition to other critical documents that ought to have been in the ballot boxes. Added to that, she said the coalition has found cases in which persons voted in the place of the dead or persons who were out of Guyana when the General and Regional Elections were held on March 2. The National Recount, she contended, is confirming that the electoral procedures were breached, particularly in People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) dominated areas.

“Fraud committed by the PPP/C was done at all levels and of various kinds. We have found hundreds of people not voting with the Oath of Identity when they know that if you don’t present an ID card you have to take an Oath,” Ally explained. The failure by Presiding Officers to stamp the ballots, and stamp them correctly remains a burning issue, the APNU+AFC Official said, explaining that there have been cases in which ballots were deemed rejected because they were unstamped or were not stamped correctly.

Such was also the case on Tuesday when 26 ballots for the General Elections were reportedly rejected for want of the official mark – the six digit number, while 26 ballots for the Regional Elections, in the same box, had two stamps – one on the left side and on the right side. It is believed that the Assistant Presiding Officer, who stamped the ballots, folded the ballots incorrectly causing the regional end to be stamped twice, and the general end of the ballots to have no stamp.

According to Ally, many of the unstamped ballots were found in APNU+AFC stronghold areas. She said what is clear is that the PPP/C employed a variety of “fraud tactics” in the different locations. The APNU+AFC has cited more than 1,200 cases in which persons voted for either the deceased or individuals who were out of the country but the PPP/C, in response, has published on its Facebook Page videos with several persons indicating that they had voted on March 2 and were not dead or out of the jurisdiction on Elections Day.
So support its claims, the APNU+AFC has furnished the Guyana Elections Commission with a number of death certificates. “We have Death Certificates, and apart from the Death Certificates, all GECOM has to do is to request from GRO who are dead. We don’t have to make up that. How do you make up that someone is dead? That is unheard of. If the person is dead, the person is dead, and if the person voted, that is one of the kinds of fraud that the PPP/C employs,” Ally said as she dismissed the videos published by the main Opposition party.

Aside from the provision of Death Certificates, the Immigration Department has confirmed that 83% of the persons listed by the APNU+AFC on a list of 207 were out of the jurisdiction on March 2, and therefore could not have voted.

In general, the APNU+AFC has contended that more than 2,000 anomalies have affected approximately 90,000 votes, and have placed on the line, the credibility of the General and Regional Elections.

Last weekend, APNU+AFC Campaign Manager, Joseph Harmon, demanded that the irregularities be thoroughly investigated by the Elections Commission.

“We cannot sail calmly into the end of the recount while your concerns go unanswered and a massive fraudulent operation carried out on your electoral process. An operation which is systemic and pervasive,” Harmon said as he called the Electorate to action. Based on the coalition’s examination of the anomalies, it concluded that Districts One, Seven, Eight and Nine were specifically targeted for special operations by the PPP/C.

Zooming in on Region Seven (Cuyuni-Mazaruni) and Region Eight (Potaro-Siparuni), Harmon pointed to a number of ballot boxes in which there were glaring irregularities. “For example in ballot box 7079 – 352 ballots were issued one day, yet 377 were discovered in the box at the recount. In ballot box 7024, fifty (50) counterfoils were missing from the ballots issued. This means that fifty (50) ballots have been casted elsewhere. Similar occurrences were found in ballot box 7003, where the wrong list of electors was found in the box,” he detailed.

Harmon further pointed out that “in box 7060 the list of electors ticked off for another station was found in this box,” while adding that there were seven (7) ballots cast in excess of the list and any other procedure which would allow it. APNU+AFC, he said, has also taken note of what it describes as the “flagrant misuse” of oaths of identity, in which persons voted without any identification and without evidence of an oath of identity. According to Harmon, there were 326 such cases identified in 27 ballot boxes.
During the period May 26-28, the coalition, while participating in the recounting of votes from District Eight, uncovered 83 cases in which persons without ID cards and oath of identity were allowed to vote.

The alleged case of unstamped ballots cast by members of the Disciplined Services remains another outstanding issue the Elections Commission must address, Harmon submitted. “My fellow Guyanese as you can see our intervention with GECOM has been based on evidence and we require GECOM to act in a timely manner on these investigations as the cumulative impact of these irregularities and fraud has a bearing on the validity of all votes. The qualitative figure so impacted is now in excess of 92, 000,” Harmon said in his public address while calling on GECOM to wake up.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-3-2020

…Counsel for Coalition, Reginald Armour urges CCJ to refuse application challenging Court of Appeal’s decision

By Svetlana Marshall
THE Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is not a Court of unlimited jurisdiction, Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel, Reginald Armour, said as he made a strong case for the CCJ to refuse the People’s Progressive Party Civic’s (PPP/C’s) application to appeal a decision handed down by Guyana’s Court of Appeal, on the basis that the Constitution – the supreme law of the land – restricts such an appeal.

Armour, one of the region’s legal luminaries, appeared virtually before the CCJ on Wednesday in a case filed by the PPP/C’s General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo, and Presidential Candidate, Irfaan Ali, against North Sophia voter, Eslyn David, and the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield and others, challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision to interpret the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177(2) (b) of the Constitution to mean “more valid votes are cast.” Armour appeared on behalf of the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Coalition – an added respondent in the case.

In laying the foundation of his argument, the Trinidadian Senior Counsel pointed to the fact that the CCJ is a regional apex court, which presides over signatory sovereign Member States based on the agreement establishing the court. He submitted that any question relating to the CCJ’s jurisdiction must start and end with the “true” interpretation of the agreement, in particularly Article XXV (5), when read together with Guyana’s Caribbean Court of Justice Act of 2004.

Article XXV (5) of the Agreement establishing the CCJ states: “Nothing in this Article shall apply to matters in relation to which the decision of the Court of Appeal of a Contracting Party is, at the time of the entry into force of the Agreement pursuant to the Constitution or any other law of that Party, declared to be final.”

The panel of five judges, led by President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders, was also invited by Armour to examine Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. “Consistent with Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, Article XXV (5) of the Agreement must be looked at for its ordinary meaning in accordance with its context, and the object and purpose of the treaty as a whole,” he reasoned.

Though the intended appellants have argued that the word “decision” in Article XXV (5) must be interpreted to mean, a decision which the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to make, Armour told the CCJ that such interpretation in not consistent with the ordinary meaning of the word as utilised in Article XXV(5). The Court of Appeal, in offering its interpretation of Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution had done so under Article 177 (4) which not only grants the Court exclusive jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution with respect to the determination of the validity of the election of a President, but indicates that such decision is final.

“It is not without significant note that within the debate and passage of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act 2004, that the Act was passed unanimously by the Parliament of the sovereign Co-operative Republic of Guyana…The primacy of the sovereign Co-operative Republic’s indigenous Court of Appeal was explicitly recognised, lauded and expressly preserved as final and this Court, the CCJ, was incorporated by Parliament into the fabric of the domestic law of Guyana and expressly told it has no jurisdiction as decreed by Article 177 (4) of the Constitution,” Armour submitted to the judges.

He added: “When the matter is considered properly and in the round, against Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, we submit that the inescapable unavoidable conclusion is that the agreement did not intent to bless the CCJ with jurisdiction to hear this particular type of appeal under Article 177 (4).”

On that basis, Armour urged the court to respect the Constitution of Guyana and refuse the application filed by the PPP/C agents for special leave to appeal a decision made under Article 177 (4).

MERIT
The Trinidadian Senior Counsel told the panel of judges that in order for the CCJ to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal, they must first satisfy themselves that the Court of Appeal was clearly wrong. However, he submitted that the Court of Appeal did nothing more than interpret the Article 177 (2) (b) as provided for in Article 177 (4).
Did the Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction? No, according to Armour. “We submit that the Court of Appeal did not. The Court of Appeal did not perform any assessment with regard to determining the validity of an election such as establishing criteria by which votes are deemed to be valid in accordance with Order No. 60’s requirement of a final credible count,” the Legal Counsel told the Court.

He alluded to the fact that Justice of Appeal, Dawn Gregory, in handing down the decision together with Justice of Appeal, Rishi Persaud, and High Court Judge, Justice Brassington Reynolds, made it clear that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of the contents of the report that the Chief Elections Officer was expected to submit. He said the Court of Appeal stayed within its remit.

Interjecting, the President of the CCJ enquired from Armour whether Article 177 (4) could be triggered at any point of the electoral process. Armour responded in the affirmative.
It was at this juncture of his presentation that Armour drew the Court’s attention to arguments put by Guyana’s Senior Counsel, Ralph Ramkarran, who represented the interest of A New and United Guyana (ANUG) and two other political parties; and Trinidad’s Senior Counsel, Douglas Mendes, who appeared on behalf of the intended appellants – Ali and Jagdeo.

Armour noted that while the Court of Appeal’s decision was based on Article 177 (2) (b) and (4), Ramkarran and Mendes based their arguments on reliefs, which were sought but were not granted by the Appellate Court below. The reliefs which were not granted were linked to irregularities and allegations of electoral fraud which arose during the national recount, which was triggered by Order No. 60.

“The point is, all of those allegations that are being made will properly arise after a declaration is made with the guidance of the Court of Appeal whose decision, we say is final, and then an elections petition may be brought through Article 163,” he submitted.
Interjecting together with Justice Peter Jamadar, the President of the CCJ enquired whether the provisions in Article 177 could be invoked in the absence of an election of a president, and whether those provisions clashed with Article 163 of the Constitution.

“…If it is that [Article] 177 (4) can be triggered when no one knows who is the individual whose invalidity, whose elections is being challenged as being invalid, then it must mean, you are applying [Article] 177(4) not to a person, who you say have been invalidly elected, but you are applying it to a process, or to a system or to a machinery. The problem is, it is that same process, that same system, that same machinery that is necessary for membership of the National Assembly. The Constitution says, that the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to interrogate questions relating to that process, to that system, to that machinery in relation to membership of the National Assembly. Once you decouple Article 177 (4) from the interrogation of a particular person as an invalidly elected president, then you are saying that 177 (4) also gives the Court of Appeal an exclusive jurisdiction to interrogate that same process, that same machinery, that same system as [Article]163 gives to members of the National Assembly. How could a Constitution provide exclusive jurisdiction, exclusive jurisdiction to two different courts to address or interrogate the same process, the same system, the same machinery?” the CCJ President reasoned, putting a series of questions to Armour.

In response the Trinidadian Senior Counsel said the language of the Constitution must be construed as a whole, noting that the Constitution is not self-contradictory. He said Articles 163 and 177 (4) have exclusive jurisdiction for separate matters – the validity of election of members of the National Assembly; and the President respectively.

OBJECTIONS
Further to that, Armour placed on record his concern. “It is impermissible in my respectful view for the court to permit itself on this appeal to be engaged in questions with reference to factual events that the intended appellants have put before this court with events that took place after the Court of Appeal’s decision. That is no part of the remit of this court,” he said.

Mendes and Ramkarran in their arguments had drew attention to the fact that the Chief Elections Officer, one day after the ruling of the Appellate Court, had submitted an Elections Report to the Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, in which he reportedly invalided approximately 115,000 votes. A call was even made for the CCJ to set aside the report of the Chief Elections Officer.

“It is not in my respectful view permissible for the court to allow itself to be led into error on hypothesis based on impermissible evidence that have been put before this court about things that have happened since the elections,” Armour told the judges.

He iterated that the Court of Appeal had turned down requests for reliefs which were linked to the actions of GECOM, its Chief Elections Officer, and what was deemed a need to determine a final credible count. He reminded that the Court of Appeal only issued an order interpreting the Constitution as provided for under Article 177 (4).

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_03_2020

– new Chief of Staff (ag) says

AS Guyana’s General and Regional elections draws to a close, newly-appointed Chief of Staff (ag) of the Guyana Defence Force (GDF), Brigadier Godfrey Bess has sworn the allegiance of the men and women under his command to a democratically-elected government, in accordance with the Constitution.

Bess made his position known on Wednesday on the sidelines of a ceremony to mark his promotion from Colonel to Brigadier to perform the functions of the office of Chief of Staff. The swearing-in ceremony took place at the Baridi Benab on the grounds of State House, and saw the feature address coming from President David Granger.

Pressed by the media into saying what will the GDF’s position be moving forward, given the present impasse occasioned by the March 2, 2020 Elections, Brigadier made it clear that the Army is not guided by circumstance but by the Constitution of Guyana, which provides clear directions.

“We are trained to support the democratically-elected government of the day, based on our Constitution, and that we will continue to do. Our relationship with the civil authorities always is subordinate, and we take instructions; legal instructions… The GDF is a professional organisation, and we will stick to the Constitution of Guyana,” the newly-commissioned Chief of Staff said.

Bess, 51, replaces Brigadier Patrick West, who has since been granted accumulated leave.

Though the country is challenged by limited finances owing to the absence of a 2020 budget due to a successful no-confidence motion against the government, and the subsequent prolonged elections, Brigadier Bess said that members of the GDF have been trained to operate with minimal resources.

He said: “What do we do when resources are minimal? Our training that we receive helps us to create, I would say, opportunities to fight against those challenges. So, training in the Guyana Defence Force we take it seriously, and it helps us in these times of challenges.”

Brigadier West, 54, served as the country’s 10th Chief of Staff. In his brief address, President Granger recognised the outgoing officer’s contribution to the Force, saying that he has “a very good foundation” to continue on.

In his remarks on Wednesday, the new Chief of Staff (ag) said that he looks forward to executing his duties to the best of his ability, and with the highest level of professionalism.

“I bring to this appointment, performing the duties of the Chief of Staff, energy. The Guyana Defence Force has been mandated by law to defend and protect our national patrimony. As the Chief of Staff, I see it as a sacrosanct duty, and we will work hard to ensure that we continue to defend the integrity of this country,” he said.

Brigadier Bess is the holder of a Bachelor of Social Science Degree in Business Management, and a Level Two Association of Chartered Certified Accountants certificate. He began his military career in 1990, serving in Command, Administrative, Staff and Training appointments. He has been serving as Quarter Master General since January 1, 2018.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_03_2020

…President says to those calling on him to concede

COMMENTATORS on Guyana’s elections situation should understand that a new President cannot be sworn in, nor can a President concede unless the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) makes a declaration in favour of either of the situations.

Speaking on the sidelines of a ceremony at State House on Wednesday, President David Granger responded to questions in relation to the same from reporters. He noted that while it has been over 17 weeks since the March 2, 2020 General and Regional elections and though the elections have gone on for longer than anyone would hope, he cannot act in the said regard until GECOM does its part.

“The Executive branch of Government does not have a role in managing elections. That role is given unto the Constitution, exclusively, explicitly to the Elections Commission. I cannot claim victory, which I have not done, and I cannot concede defeat, which I have not done, unless I’m notified, formally, by the Chairman of the Elections Commission,” he said.

Before the commission can conclude the elections with a declaration, the current elections matter before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) must also be concluded. The CCJ must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to rule on the matter which was previously ruled upon by Guyana’s Court of Appeal and noted, in the Article 177 (4) of the Constitution, to be final. Should the CCJ determine, nonetheless, that is has jurisdiction, it could lead to a ruling on whether the Appellate Court had jurisdiction to rule on the matter as brought to the CCJ by the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C).

Until then and until the commission makes a declaration, the President has encouraged all those making premature comments to exercise patience. He said: “I don’t know what the Elections Commission will declare. Like all Guyanese, we’ve been subject to various reports but the only authentic report will come from the Chairman of the Elections Commission to me and that has not happened. In that regard, I encourage all the spokespersons and commentators to wait, patiently, on the Chairman of the Elections Commission who, when she is ready, will make a declaration and, as I’ve said before, I’ll abide by that declaration.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_03_2020

DISTANCING the United States (US) from allegations of “foreign interference” in Guyana elections, US Ambassador Sarah-Ann Lynch said on Thursday that the US does not hold preference for which political party should legitimately win the elections as it stands ready to continue its bilateral relations none the less.

“I will close by sharing an apparently well-kept secret: The United States Government is entirely non-partisan about which party wins Guyana’s 2020 elections. The major parties – and the smaller ones too – all offer the opportunity to continue an excellent bilateral relationship based on a shared commitment to supporting improved governance, prosperity, and security in Guyana. Let’s get on with that important work,” Lynch said in a release to the media.

She noted that during the politically-charged election cycle, US diplomats have been “quite properly” very vocal about the local situation and this has led to a common criticism of diplomatic statements. The Ambassador said, however, that she and other US diplomats must speak as such is in keeping with foreign policy, the Constitution of the United States and the Guyanese Constitution. The US and other Western countries have been accused of meddling in the elections. Commissioners of the Guyana Elections Commission have complained that at one of their meetings, the Canadian High Commissioner barged in without invitation. Diplomats have also been seen heavily involved in GECOM tabulation exercise and have made a number of statements regarding the elections outcome and how the tabulation of the votes should be done.

But Lynch in a statement said: “In foreign policy, the difference between meddling and practising good diplomacy is that the latter involves sticking to bedrock principles of human rights, good governance, and transparency and, whenever possible, underscoring the values that bind the country you represent to the country in which you serve. Quite properly, there has been a lot of attention by U.S. diplomats to Guyana’s 2020 election day and events after it. In this context, silence breaks an oath I took. In serious and soaring language, I swore to ‘bear true faith and allegiance’ to the Constitution of the United States, and it is in that document where these bedrock principles stand solidly for me. Indeed, 11 of the 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution address voting rights, electoral issues, or matters of succession by our representatives.”

She added that the international extension of these principles is present in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and Article 3 of the Charter of The Organization of American States which speak to the “exercise of representative democracy.”
The US Ambassador noted Guyana’s own words on the Venezuela crisis in which it stated that the country’s electoral proves “lacked legitimacy” as it had neither the participation of all political actors, presence of independent international observers or the compliance with international standards for a free, fair and transparent election. “Such statements are not foreign interference, they amount to good diplomacy by members of the hemisphere’s democratic club. My hope and expectation is that Guyana maintains its good standing as a member of this club by counting all the election day votes through a transparent and credible process. Guyana is certainly not Venezuela; let’s keep it that way,” Lynch stated.

She added: “Some have criticised the U.S. Government for speaking out, suggesting we would do better to get our own house in order. To that I respond, democracy, or rule by the people, is almost always noisy. The democratic cacophony is home to our competing values and political identities in the public square. At its heart, democracy is the expression of our freedom to be represented. As such, each adult citizen must have one vote and each vote must have one value.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle-epaper_04_03_2020

Dear Editor

As a concerned citizen, I am compelled to express my dissatisfaction with the slothfulness with which the GECOM has been discharging its responsibilities in relation to the March 2nd General and Regional Elections

From all available accounts I am convinced that enough legal and moral avenues have been accommodated by the Coalition Party which I am are aware has convincingly won the elections. Therefore, it is time that the matter be put to rest by the GECOM which is a legal, independent constitutional body established for the delivery of credible elections in this country.
I am fully cognizant that there are certain individuals and groups in our society who have no interest in the sustained peace, harmony and progress which our “Republic” has experienced during the past five years and as a consequence they have invented various mischievous and empty schemes to prolong the current stalemate which descended upon one month ago.
However, the APNU + AFC is interested in progress and Human Development for the benefit of all Guyanese.

In the circumstances therefore, I hereby call on the Honorable Chairman to use her good office and put this matter to rest by ensuring that an official declaration of the election results is made now.

The Chief Elections Officer has already declared the APNU + AFC the winner of the elections much to the disappointment of the enemies of Democracy. They have launched a sustained smear campaign and character assignation on His Excellency Mr. David Granger who has thus far demonstrated statesman’s-ship of a very high order but also acted in conformity with and obeyed the Constitution and related Election Laws of our country.
Madam ‘Chair’ the time has come for you to act decisively and ensure that the election results are declared now. We can wait no longer.

Yours truly,
Patrick Haynes,

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle-epaper_04_03_2020

Dear Editor:
Reference is being made to Kaieteur News’ article “Kingston Wharf purchased by BK days before election” (2nd April 2020).

Some years ago, I was the trade union representative on the Privatisation Board- the only black person- when the property in question was put up by the Bharrat Jagdeo government for sale. That property which is located in Water Street was the former Guyana Rice Board (GRB) wharf which was burnt down through questionable circumstance during the life of the PPP government.

Among the bids for that property was one from BK International. Winston Brassington, Executive Director of NICIL, recommended at the meeting the property would be best given to a Company he was proposing which was registered at Phagoo Store in Regent Street. The proposed company had no track record with any business. I objected!

I objected because I looked at the proposal of that company, BK International and others, and found BK’s proposal to be superior, satisfying the many requirements demanded by the PPP/C government. In as much as Brassington represented the company registered at Phagoo, the CAGI representative and Consumer representative on the Board supported my justification for BK to be given the property. The entire Board, appointed by the PPP/C government, agreed we will recommend to Cabinet the property will go to BK.

Let me make it very clear, I never knew Brian Tiwari at the time, but met him subsequently at the funeral of Mr. Christiani Lewis, the original owner of Waterchris.

What is instructive is that the PPP government took time in making sure the final and legal transfer of this and some other properties were never brought to finality. The reason behind this behaviour, is one of control over the intended Leasee/owner. So if for any reason said person /persons or company wants to approach the bank or third party to be involved in any business it will require permission from the government to do so. As such, if the person to whom the property is given should take a position that conflicts with the government the owner will never be able to get the support or comfort to do any business with a bank or third party because the government can exercise leverage to keep the party in check.

The property has been in the possession of Brian Tiwari and for all intended purposes was intended for transfer. The coalition government has done what the PPP initiated but failed to complete for whatever reason. This is a final and legal transfer to the owner. The same principle that applied for the GRB wharf was applied for the BIDCO house which was also transferred to Capt. Gerry Gouveia, currently Chairman of the Private Sector Commission. Said property situated in Duke Street Kingston is now converted into a business called Duke Lodge.

This is not a simple case of disposal of state asset for if it is so then both governments would be held responsible and have questionable intent in starting this deal and/or completing it. In my opinion the completion of the transfer of the GRB wharf is just that, a completion of one deal that started under a government and which another government has taken the responsibility to execute. The timing unfortunately like everything in Guyana right now, given the climate, is an opportunity for political advantage. If in the presence of the worst pandemic in years COVID-19 response and support is used for political ends what else must we in Guyana expect.

Regards
Lincoln Lewis

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle-epaper_04_03_2020

THE National Front Alliance (NFA), a party amongst the governing coalition, has called on the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to abide by the law by declaring the final results of the elections.

The party has also cautioned the Commission to safeguard itself from being steered into illegality by the political “power-hungry”. In a letter to the media, the NFA stated that the 2020 General and Regional Elections, based on Regional results already declared by all Returning Officers (ROs), show that the coalition government has won the elections.
For the Commission to now act in any way besides making its overall declaration –in light of recent court rulings — would be gross disregard for the law, according to the NFA.

“The Guyanese nation has been held to ransom for one month over the declaration of the winner of our General Elections, by forces who believe that whatever they stipulate without regard for the law must be the standard by which we must abide. The elections are over, the APNU + AFC coalition has won the battle to keep Guyana on a democratic and peaceful path. The coalition has obeyed the Constitution and has stood resolutely in the face of the machinations of the local and external detractors who cannot deal with their defeat,” their release stated.

“The NFA, a party in the coalition, demands that the Chairperson and Commissioners obey the law and declare the APNU + AFC the winner of the elections. To do otherwise would be illegal as the CEO of GECOM has already declared the winner. Therefore, all claims for a recount is not provided for once his declaration has been made. Such a claim must be rejected.”

The seven-member Commission is currently engaged in a meeting at its High and Cowan Streets office where the way forward is to be determined based on the examination of the ruling of the full court. The NFA posited that since the break down in the tabulation process of Statement of Polls (SOPs) belonging to Region Four, when the figures pointed to the APNU+AFC as the winner, some opposing politicians have been relentlessly disregarding the rule of law.

The party also stated that attacks have come to the President and the APNU+AFC which, through it all, have been abiding by the Constitution and law. The coalition member said that the most recent attack has been made to GECOM and it appears as if these opposing politicians “expect all Guyana to accept their disregard for the law and act according to their dictates”

However, the NFA stated: “Their latest assault is on GECOM with the expectation that the Chairperson and the Commissioners must bent to their will and circumvent the law to satisfy the power-hungry hoard that seek to usurp the place of the legal winner of these elections…to seek to accommodate detractors infamous for breaking down doors would be a travesty to justice and decency. They must be told that an Election Petition to the court is the legal and only way to go. This nation can ill afford to engage in the politics of appeasement at the expense of principles and regard for the law.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle-epaper_04_03_2020