COMMISSIONER of Police Leslie James in a letter to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), has confirmed that 172 persons from a list of 207 were not in Guyana when the General and Regional Elections were held on March 2.

In response to claims by the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) that persons voted in the place of migrants, the Chair of the Elections Commission, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, in a letter on May 22, requested immigration records from the Police Commissioner as the Chief Immigration Officer. The names of 207 individuals were provided to the police commissioner based on a list submitted by APNU+AFC, and according to GECOM’s Public Relations Officer (PRO), Yolanda Ward, a response was received on May 27, 2020.

“The response from the [Police] commissioner would have indicated that a 172 out of that 207 did not arrive or return to Guyana on or before the 2nd March,” Ward told reporters during a press conference outside the Arthur Chung Conference Centre – the venue for the national recount.

While the police commissioner has confirmed that more than 83 per cent of the persons listed were out of the jurisdiction, Ward was unable to confirm whether those persons’ names were marked off as having voted on polling day as alleged by the APNU+AFC.

“I would not be able to provide that detail,” the GECOM PRO said when pressed for answers. Asked whether the elections secretariat will retrieve the Official List of Electors (OLEs) to confirm or negate the claims of the APNU+AFC, Ward made it known that the issue is actively engaging the attention of the commission, and as such no decision has been made.

“The commission has not made a decision on the way forward on this matter; and I wouldn’t want to say that it (the OLE) is inaccessible; it is right behind the Arthur Chung Conference Centre,” Ward said, while iterating that the issue is still engaging the attention of the commission.

While GECOM’s PRO has indicated that a single list of 207 names was provided by the APNU+AFC on May 20, the coalition’s executive member Aubrey Norton had told reports last week that 600 names were provided to GECOM to support its claim that persons voted in the place of migrants. But those 600 names, according to the APNU+AFC, were part of a list of 1,200 plus names of persons, who were alleged to have voted on polling day but were out of the jurisdiction.

In addition to the 1,200 immigration-related cases, the APNU+AFC has cited over 800 additional cases in which it alleged that there were irregularities and discrepancies, including cases in which persons allegedly voted on behalf of the dead. These irregularities, the coalition has argued, have affected more than 90,000 votes and ought to be thoroughly investigated by the elections commission before the results of the March 2 elections are declared.

However, there has been much debate on whether or not the commission has the authority to request immigration records from the Immigration Department at this stage of the elections, and whether it can investigate the claims of electoral fraud being made by the ruling APNU+AFC.

While Article 162 empowers the commission to take necessary action to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with the constitution and the electoral laws, the opposition, referencing Article 163, has maintained that only the High Court has jurisdiction to investigate cases of irregularities and or electoral fraud. The commission, whose members were nominated by both government and opposition, is sharply divided on the matter.

Elections Commissioner Vincent Alexander, who was nominated by the government, has argued that GECOM must address the irregularities which would form part of the Observation Report before a declaration is made, while maintaining that the commission has the authority to investigate these discrepancies.

Commissioner Sase Gunraj, who was nominated by the opposition People’s Progressive Party/Civic, has however argued that GECOM has no jurisdiction to investigate the claims made by the APNU+AFC, on the grounds that such could only be addressed at the level of the High Court by way of an elections petition.

But Political Scientist Dr David Hinds, in an interview with the Guyana Chronicle, said that GECOM under the Constitution and Elections Law (Amendment) Act, has the authority to investigate the anomalies ahead of the declaration of results.

“If it could, as the court has said, look into the complaints about the tabulation of Region Four votes, then it can investigate and pronounce on other forms of inconsistencies,” Dr Hinds submitted, while underscoring the need for GECOM to facilitate a thorough investigation.

He said the discrepancies discovered thus far have already called into question the credibility of the March 2 elections.

“I think the irregularities uncovered thus far are enough to call into question the credibility of the elections. You simply cannot have a credible outcome if the process is as compromised as we are finding out. The numbers cannot be right if the process is wrong. It is as plain and clear as that,” the political scientist reasoned.

While dismissing claims that the recount is merely numerical, the political scientist said the primary purpose of the national recount is to determine the credibility of the elections, and as such, anomalies and discrepancies ought to be investigated.

“Was the electoral process a credible one? You can best determine that by a comprehensive look at how the electoral architecture was or was not manipulated by persons and forces entrusted with ensuring fairness,” he said, while noting that the recount itself is a very expansive investigation.

“So, you do not go through a recount and then at the end of the process say it’s not my duty to pronounce on what I find—leave it to a petition. GECOM cannot do investigation for the court—its investigation is to satisfy its own needs,” Dr. Hinds further stated.

He submitted that it is hypocritical to talk about democratic outcomes when the process is undemocratic.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_02_2020

…AG Basil Williams argues

AGAINST the claims of the Opposition that the death certificates in the possession of APNU+AFC party agents were “obtained nefariously”, Attorney General, Basil Williams, has set the record straight by highlighting that every Guyanese has the right to access official documents in the possession of public authorities.

Since the commencement of the national recount, APNU+AFC agents have used the occasion to highlight cases where they believe persons may have voted illegally in the stead of dead persons.

The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) has questioned the agents’ possession of these documents with Opposition-nominated GECOM Commissioner, Sase Gunraj, stating: “It is worrisome to see persons purporting to have those documents in their hands. Whether they are legitimate or not, the main fact that they have access to it, is of concern.”

AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT
However, pointing to the law, the AG cited the Access to Information Act, No. 21 of 2011, section 3(1), which first outlines that “the objective of this Act is to extend the right of members of the public to access information in the possession of public authorities.”

Further down in section 12(1) of the Act, it states: “Notwithstanding any law to the contrary and subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the right of every Guyanese citizen or person domiciled in Guyana to obtain access to an official document.”

The AG said that an ‘official document’ is defined in section 2 of the Act as “a document held by a public authority in connection with its functions as such, and created after the commencement of this Act and, for the purposes of this definition, a document is held by a public authority if it is in possession, custody or power”

Under Section 2, it states that a ‘document’ includes books, maps, plans, graphs, drawings and photographs; any disc, tape, soundtrack or other device in which sound or other data (not being visual images) are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced therefrom; any film, negative, tape or other device in which one or more visual images are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced therefrom and any copy of a record which can be produced from a machine readable record under the control of a public authority however generated, such copy being deemed to be a record under the control of the public authority.

The AG highlighted that a death certificate falls under the category of both the definition of ‘document’ and ‘official document’ according to the Act.

OPEN ACCESS
Meanwhile, former Attorney General and PPP/C Executive, Anil Nandlall has also made remarks to the media stating that it is an offence for one to obtain a death certificate belonging to another person.

“The family did not authorise it, the family got their own document but someone in APNU/AFC got this document…this is an abuse of State power,” he said.

However, the AG once again pointed to the Law which details the procedure one should take to gain access to official documents as set out under Section 16 of the Access to Information Act.

He said that while it caters for an application to be made to the Commissioner of Information on the requisite form, Section 15 of the Act also creates an exception to accessing official documents from the said Commissioner.

Section 15 gives a list of three conditions wherein it states that “A person may not apply, under this Act for access” if the said conditions are met. These conditions are: (a) a document which contains information that is open to public access or on an official website, as part of a public register or otherwise, in accordance with any other written law, where even that access is subject to a fee or other charge; (b) a document which contains information that is available for purchase by the public in accordance with arrangements made by a public authority and (c) a document that is available for public inspection in a registry maintained by the Registrar General, the National Archives, Parliament or other public authority.

The AG further explained that the Collins Dictionary states that “you use ‘may’ to indicate that someone is allowed to do something, usually because of a rule or law. You use ‘may not’ to indicate that someone is not allowed to do something.”

“The Section states that a person ‘may not’ apply under the Act in certain instances. The use of ‘may not’ in the section is a prohibition,” he said, adding: “Therefore, for documents mentioned under section 15 of the Access to Information Act, a person is prohibited from accessing those documents from the Commissioner of Information.”

Pointing also to Section 49 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, Cap 44:01, he said that, as it relates to obtaining a death certificate, this document falls under paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 15 of the Access to Information Act above.

The AG noted that death certificates are available for purchase and inspection in a registry maintained by the Registrar General. When it comes to access, one must be pointed to the Registration of Births and Deaths Act which details how an application must be made.

This must be done pursuant to Section 49 which states: “(1) The Registrar General shall cause indices of all duly completed registration forms in his possession herein mentioned to be made and kept in the General Registrar Office. (2) Everyone shall be entitled, on payment of the fees prescribed by the Minister by order, to search the indices between the hours of ten o’clock in the morning and four o’clock in the afternoon of every day, except public holidays and Saturdays, and to have extracted therefrom a sealed certificate of birth in Form 4 or a sealed certificate of death in Form 5, as the case may be.”

The APNU+AFC claims that it has unearthed over 4,122 numerical irregularities since the commencement of the recount process. Of these cases, they allege that some 41 persons would have voted in the place of dead persons.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_02_2020

Dear Editor,
WITH each day that the recount/audit of the March 2 elections continues, the findings of that process are pointing increasingly sharply and emphatically in only one direction and towards one conclusion: the elections were fraudulent.

Since the PPP did everything it could to prevent a recount, and, now, considering the PPP’s continuing efforts to stymie investigations, not to mention the defensive posture that the PPP has now adopted regarding the accusations of electoral fraud, one may reasonably conclude that the unquestionable fraud was masterminded by that party. Editor, all of that is well known; the point that I wish to make here is: patriotic Guyanese simply cannot accept the result of fraudulent elections.

Article 9 of the Constitution of Guyana states that, “Sovereignty belongs to the people . . .” In other words, it is the people who owns political power. That same Article goes on to say that such power is exercised through elected representatives. The fact that those representatives should be fairly (not fraudulently) elected is self-evident. It follows that electoral thievery and fraud must not be allowed to stand; the people — in whom sovereignty resides — must necessarily reject any and every electoral thief and fraudster. We, Guyanese, simply cannot surrender our sovereign power to electoral fraudsters.

It has been reported that, so far, it has been found that more than 220,000 votes are compromised by fraud. Evidently, considering the size of our electorate, even if those compromised votes were discounted, that number of compromised votes would exceed any margin of “victory.” Further, 220,000 votes is simply too large a number to be summarily discounted, and, let us not forget that the recount/audit is far from complete.

Editor, where that leaves us collectively, may be for GECOM to decide. What I can say, though, is, as a citizen of this country, I cannot in good conscience accept the outcome of fraudulent elections, and, I believe that every fair-minded, clear-thinking, patriotic citizen must, without any doubt, share that logical opinion and principled conviction.

Regards,
Troy Garraway

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_02_2020

Dear Editor
I WANT to comment on a story captioned “Election Day process so impressive that it was impossible to cheat” which was published by a local newspaper on March 31. The news story sought to explain how the European Ambassador was impressed with the various levels of safeguards in the electoral process, and that he believes it was impossible for any party to cheat at the polling stations.

That news story, and the Ambassador’s statements, demonstrate why it was so important that CARICOM, instead of the Carter Center or the EU Observers, supervise the ongoing recount process, and it also points to an underlying reason why some observer groups are unable to detect electoral fraud. I believe that the EU Ambassador was sincere – he most likely believes that it was impossible to cheat at the polling stations. The Ambassador, like some international observers, fell victim to what is often referred to as “mirror imaging”. He is assessing the electoral process in Guyana through the lens of the electoral process in his country. He said “One person came to vote. He or she has to identify himself, but then also, he has to be seen on the list and there are pictures, which in my country, we never had pictures. So, I was quite positively impressed”. And there is the problem. In more established democracies there is no need for some of the electoral safeguards we see in burgeoning democracies. For example, as the Ambassador noted, several countries do not require a photo-ID to cast ballots. Photo-ID’s are not necessary in those places, because several other safeguards such as updated electoral registries (voters list), and electronic voting prevent multiple voting by a single person or dead and otherwise absent people being able to vote.

So, by using a European frame of reference, of course any European observer would be impressed by all the safeguards we have. And because the Ambassador is impressed by the safeguards, in his mind, his instincts therefore prevents him from seeing the possibility that dead or absent people could have voted in Guyana. Similarly, because there is no expectation of collusion between political parties and polling station presiding officers in his country, it is almost impossible for him to see that possibility in Guyana…. Again, the effects of mirror imaging.

Mirror Imaging does not affect only Europeans. It affects everyone, including those observers from Canada or the US, unless they find a way to counter its effects. Mirror Imaging basically explains that we expect people to behave the way would normally do in similar situations. The EU Ambassador clearly expected Guyanese voters to be like European voters. The Canadian and American observers may also have expected Guyanese voters to behave like voters in their respective countries. And this could help explain why they do not seem to understand how easy it is to compromise the integrity of Guyana’s elections with the support of a bloated list of electors, and the unwitting support of the international community.

The observers’ failure to detect fraud, and their inabilities to appreciate the likelihood of election-day skullduggery, are important factors contributing to the electoral challenges we now face. It is uncertain whether those observers who have already determined that the PPP did not commit fraud would be able to change their opinions, even when presented with verifiable evidence. The PPP, through the business elites in the Private Sector Commission, continues to have the propaganda advantage. That so far has provided cover for the party since many observers are yet to accept that dead people could vote. That cover will soon be removed and what is exposed may be shocking to some.

Respectfully
Max Mohamed

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_02_2020

By Svetlana Marshall
WITH 1,836 of the 2,339 ballot boxes already processed, the recount of votes cast at the General and Regional Elections could be completed well ahead of the June 13 deadline — if all goes well.

Some 503 ballot boxes are therefore left to be processed. On Monday (Day 27), a total of 97 ballot boxes were processed at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC) where 12 workstations have been established to recount the votes cast three months ago on March 2. Of the 97 ballot boxes, 36 were from Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica), 33 from Region Six (East Berbice-Corentyne), two from Region Nine (Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo) and 26 from Region 10 (Upper Demerara- Upper Berbice).

“Looking at the rate [at which] 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,” Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Public Relations Officer Yolanda Ward told reporters on the outskirts of the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC) on Monday.

Providing a progress report, Ward noted that all of the votes cast in seven (7) of the 10 electoral districts have been recounted and as such, the focus now is on Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica), Region Six (East Berbice-Corentyne) and Region 10 (Upper Demerara- Upper Berbice). Six of the 12 work stations, according to Ward, have been assigned to process votes from Region Four, while three each have been assigned to Regions 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.

“Of those seven that have been completed, five [Regions One, Two, Three, Five and Seven] would have been certified,” Ward said, while noting that the Certificates of District Tabulation for the other two regions — Eight and Nine — would be signed off soon.

REJECTED BALLOTS
According to Ward, as of Monday morning there were 1, 536 rejected ballots for the general elections based on the five electoral districts for which Certificates of District Tabulation have been generated. Rejected ballots for the regional elections totalled 1,927.

In Region One, there were a total of 380 rejected ballots for the general elections, and 328 rejected ballots for the regional leections. In Region Two, there were 251 rejected ballots in the general elections and 380 for the regional elections. Based on the votes processed in Region Three, there were 485 rejected ballots for the general elections and another 618 for the regional elections. There were 256 rejected ballots for Region Five in the general elections and another 374 for the regional elections. In Region Seven there were 164 rejected ballots in the general elections and 227 for the regional elections.

Ward explained that a ballot is deemed rejected “for want of official mark, which is the stamp, unmarked or void of uncertainty, marked for more than one party’s list of candidates, or mark so that the elector can be identified.”

“Anything within those categories is what constitutes a rejected ballot,” she added.
While Ward was able to provide a breakdown of the ballots rejected thus far based on the five regions certified, she was unable to indicate how many of those ballots were unstamped. There have been cases in which half of the ballot was stamped and the other half unstamped. According to her, the commission is still deliberating on how it will treat with the ballots that were partially stamped.

“At this point I can’t say where they are at with their discussion,” Ward said, while noting that there is a concern that some of the unstamped ballots may be that of members of the Disciplined Services. The Disciplined Services –- members of the Guyana Police Force, Guyana Defence Force and Guyana Prison Service –- voted 10 days ahead of E-Day.

“As you know, the Disciplined Services’ ballots were not stamped when they voted…It is to be stamped at the time of intermixing at the respective polling stations where they have been gazetted to be intermixed; and so because of some of the numbers that were emanating from some of those boxes, it was believed that some of those could have been a case where Disciplined Services ballots were not stamped,” the GECOM PRO explained.

The seven-member elections commission met on Monday at the conference centre, and though the issue reportedly surfaced again, no decision was made. The national recount commenced on May 6 at the 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 commission last Friday amended the Order to facilitate an extension to June 13.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_02_2020

Dear Editor
The charade must stop. The will of the Guyanese people must prevail. The notion of ‘one man, one vote’ must prevail. Only valid votes can be counted as ordered by the Court of Appeal. Disgraceful efforts by the PPP/C to threaten public servants either by informal coercion (threats of sanctions) or malicious prosecution must be rejected.

The attempt by the PPP/C to abuse the good office of the Commissioner of Police by laying a malicious complaint before that office must be met with contempt. I refer to the false criminal complaint against GECOM’s CEO, Mr. Keith Lowenfield, for misconduct in public office.  Mr. Lowenfield is an employee of GECOM; enjoying a private contractual relationship with that entity. The staff of GECOM do not contribute to the Government Pension Fund; neither do they provide a public service (goods). Unlike those working in the ministries, teachers and policemen, GECOM employees are not civil servants. They are much like the staff of GRA, GPHC, Guyana Civil Aviation and the CJIA.

The complaint is therefore unmeritorious, unattractive and must have been actuated by nothing less than malice and a vexatious spirit. I come to this conclusion simply because Mr. Keith Lowenfield is not a public officer; despite he is performing a public duty. The question as to who is a public officer or who holds public office was answered since 1973 by Chancellor of Judiciary,  Edward Victor Luckhoo, in the matter of an application for a Writ of Certiorari by Gordon Yaw v. V.J. Correia (C.A. 12/1973). The Court of Appeal noted then that there must be an office held by a person appointed by or on behalf of the Public Service Commission, to serve the State, for an emolument. This is the interpretation of article 232 of our Constitution.

Further, appointments to the Public Service of Guyana are done pursuant to article 201(1) of the Constitution of Guyana and the Public Service Rules, 1987/1998 (as amended). Common sense will tell you that Mr. Lowenfield was not appointed by the Public Service Commission. Rather, he is an employee of GECOM – an independent and absolutely autonomous Constitutional body. Therefore, the complaint of misconduct in public office is malicious and must die an early death at the desk of the Secretary to the Commissioner of Police.

The question as to who is a public officer was also answered by former Chancellor, Carl Singh, in the case of Chue and Hyman v Attorney General of Guyana (unreported, H.C.A. No. 6 of 1998). Justice Royston Nelson of the CCJ later approved Justice Singh’s reasoning in Griffith (Brent) v Guyana Revenue Authority (2006) 69 WIR 320, where he concluded that Griffith was not a public officer of the GRA/Inland Revenue by virtue of the status of the Revenue Authority and its employees not providing a civil service but one owed to the Government of Guyana. Further, Chancellor Desiree Bernard, sitting alongside former Chancellor Carl Singh and Justice Nandram Kissoon in the outstanding Case of Sita Ramlall (Registrar of the High Court) v Cheryl Scotland and Others, concluded that public officers are persons employed by the Public Service Commission or someone delegated with powers to employ on behalf of the commission. GECOM was never one such body.  Moreover, the PPP/C’s private charges against Mr. Lowenfield relates to execution of his function as part of the work of GECOM. Under Article 226 (7) of the Constitution, no court can inquire into the work of GECOM.

The circus must end, and the will of the Guyanese people must be recognised fully on the basis of ‘one man, one vote’ and the tabulation of valid votes.

Regards,
Richard Millington
Attorney-at-Law
Board Member
Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy (CGID)

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_02_2020

…CCJ to hand down, next Wednesday, landmark decision on PPP/C’s elections appeal
…AG tells Court it was widespread electoral fraud that warranted need for the determination of “valid votes”
…maintains court has no jurisdiction to hear appeal to Court of Appeal’s decision

By Svetlana Marshall
NEXT Wednesday, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will hand down its decision on whether it can assume jurisdiction in a challenge seeking to set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeal that the election of the President must be on the basis of “valid votes.”
President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders, who led a panel of five judges, made the announcement on Wednesday (July 1) after hearing more than five hours of legal arguments virtually on whether the CCJ has jurisdiction to hear the case filed by People’s Progressive Party/Civic’s (PPP/C’s) General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo and Presidential Candidate, Irfaan Ali; and if it has jurisdiction, whether the Court of Appeal’s decision that the words “more voters are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution are interpreted to mean “more valid votes are cast,” should be upheld or set aside. The ruling will be delivered at 15:00hrs on Wednesday, July 8, 2020.

The other judges in the case were Justice Jacob Wit, Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Justice Denys Barrow and Justice Peter Jamadar – all of whom appeared virtually.

WIDESPREAD FRAUD

In his oral submission to the panel of judges, Guyana’s Attorney General, while maintaining that the CCJ has absolutely no jurisdiction to hear an appeal to the decision of the Court of Appeal made under Article 177 (4), explained that it was widespread anomalies and cases of voter impersonation that warranted a clear indication that the President ought to be elected on the basis of “valid votes.”

“The reason for introducing valid in Article 177 (2) (b) is simple, fraudulent votes. The elections produced fraud of an unprecedented scale in the history of elections in Guyana and therefore every precaution had to be taken to ensure that in the Presidential Elections also, in Article 177 [(2) (b)], that if more votes are cast, should be crystalised,” the Attorney General explained.

At the time, he was offering clarification in response to a series of questions posed by the President of the CCJ, in addition to Justice Jacob Wit and Justice Jamadar. The judges had asked whether a President could be elected on the basis of “invalid votes,” in their quest to understand the reason behind Eslyn David’s request, in her Notice of Motion to the Court of Appeal, for there to be an interpretation of the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b).

Williams told the CCJ that while Article 163 of the Constitution grants the High Court exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of the election of any member to the National Assembly, the President does not form part of the National Assembly. He submitted that only the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the election of any person to the Office of the President. In fact, Article 177 (4) grants the Court of Appeal 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 upon the qualifications of any person for election or the interpretation of the Constitution.

FINALITY

On the issue of jurisdiction, the Attorney General pointed out that any decision made by the Court of Appeal under Article 177 (4) is final, and cannot be the subject of an appeal in any other court including the CCJ. He argued that while Parliament, under Article 123 of the Constitution, established the CCJ as Guyana’s final Appellate Court with the enactment of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act, the court’s jurisdiction is limited. Section 4 (3) of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act, he said, limits the court’s jurisdiction. “Nothing in this Act shall confer jurisdiction on the Court to hear matters in relation to any decision of the Court of Appeal which at the time of entry into force of this Act was declared to be final by any law,” the section states.

Further to that, he made it clear that no Act can override the constitution – the supreme law of the land. Antigua and Barbuda’s Queen Counsel, Justin Simon, who appeared in association with the Attorney General, in establishing the argument, said both Section 4 (3) of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act and the Article 177 (4) of the Constitution ouster the CCJ’s jurisdiction in the case currently before the Court. “That constitutional section makes it very clear that the Court of Appeal’s decisions in respect of issues raised as to the validity of an election of a President are decisions which are final and ought not be appealed to any higher body, particularly the CCJ,” Queen Counsel Simon told the judges.

He noted that at the core of the first respondent Eslyn David’s Notice of Motion, which was filed in the Court of Appeal, was an interpretation of Article 177 (2) (b) which outlines the procedure for the election of a President. He pointed out that the Court of Appeal, in its decision, simply interpreted the words “more votes are cast” to mean “more valid votes are cast.” “This was the specific relief which was given because there were no coercive orders made by the Court of Appeal. And in giving that interpretation, the Court of Appeal was looking at the broad meaning of the words which were used in Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act. It is our respectful contention, therefore, that what was sought was an interpretation of a Constitutional provision, and as such, we submit that…Article 177 (4) gives to the Court of Appeal, in no uncertain terms, the exclusive jurisdiction to hear the motion which had been filed by the first respondent,” the Antiguan and Barbadian Queen Counsel submitted to the court. He iterated that on the basis that the decision was made under Article 177 (4), it is final.

Jurisdiction aside, he asked the judges what is the harm in giving a liberal interpretation of the words identified by David in Article 177 (2) (b). Amid contentions by Jagdeo and Ali’s attorneys that David’s case ought to have been filed in the High Court via an Elections Petition, Queen Counsel Simon turned the CCJ’s attention to the case – Reeaz Holladar v the Returning Officer, in which, the Court adjudicated on the matter outside of an Elections Petition, albeit that the issue arose during the elections process. Reference was also made to the case –Ulita Moore v the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), which was also filed and adjudicated upon during the ongoing elections.

Interjecting, Justice Saunders, while pointing to Article 177 (4), asked the Queen Counsel, who is the person about whom a question was being raised as to the validity of the election as President. In responding, the Queen Counsel said it spoke to whomever was going to be President from the List of Candidates with the most votes. Pressing Queen Counsel Simon for more answers, the CCJ President then asked: “when it (Article 177 (4)) goes on to speak about the qualification of a person, if we don’t know the identity of the person, how can we begin to assess the qualification of someone who we don’t know, who we can’t identity?”

QUALIFICATION
In response, Queen Counsel Simon told the Court: “With respect, I do not think that is the proper way to look at it because if we look at the section, what it says clearly, in so far as that question depends upon the qualification of any person for election. So the qualification of any person for election, presumes that there is a particular candidate, one looks at the qualification of that candidate.”

Again, Justice Saunders questioned who is the Candidate? The Queen Counsel said in this case, it speaks to the election of either of two candidates. Simon urged the Court not to limit the interpretation of the Constitution. “I would respectfully submit especially as we are looking at the Constitution that what we ought to be doing is giving it a liberal interpretation because what is important is that the process is followed, and more importantly, while the Constitution has provided that the decision of the Court of Appeal would be final, that the matter actually goes directly to the Court of Appeal, is to ensure that in terms of time that there is no wastage or lengthy timeframe,” Queen Counsel Simon told the CCJ.

Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel John Jeremie, who appeared on behalf of Eslyn David, also argued that the CCJ had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal brought by Ali and Jagdeo on the basis that the Court of Appeal’s decision is final due to its exclusive jurisdiction. While the PPP/C’s lawyers suggested that David, in approaching the Court, was really seeking an interpretation of the Order No. 60 and not Article 177 (2) (b), Jeremie, like the Attorney General and Simon, made it clear that key to David’s case was the interpretation of the Constitution, and it was the judicial responsibility of the Court of Appeal to assume jurisdiction.

“I say the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction. But even if I am wrong, I am saying that this court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal because the clear intendment of the Constitution and the agreement is that disputes of this type end in the Court of Appeal even if the Court of Appeal was wrong on the question of Jurisdiction,” Jeremie told the judges.

DISJUNCTIVE CONDITIONS
In support of his argument, Jeremie like the Attorney General, relied on the Eusi Kwayana 1980 application, in which the Court of Appeal at the time indicated that the conditions laid out in the Article are disjunctive, and therefore not dependent on each other. “Those words do not require any interpretation. They are the words of the final court of appeal in Guyana. The case tells us how the section is to be construed,” Jeremie argued even as he maintained that there can be no challenge to the Court of Appeal’s decision.
Interjecting, Justice Wit, in putting forward a hypothetical situation, asked the Trinidadian Senior Counsel if the Court of Appeal in its ruling had determined that the elections were to be considered by the term “more invalid votes cast,” if it would still be correct in jurisdiction.

Jeremie, in response, said as strange as that may be, the Appeal Court’s decision would still be final.

“In respect of the sovereign pronouncements by the Guyanese parliament in enacting the CCJ Act and in respect of the provisions of the Constitution, on the authority as silly as that proposition is, this court has no jurisdiction to trespass on that once it is the provisions of Section (4) (3) are there and once the provisions are cast in terms of the constitutional provision,” he submitted.

He added: “That is the result which deeming provision contained in the constitution dealing with exclusivity and finality and the conjoined effect of the CCJ Act Sect 4, which is the conclusion that we are drawn to. It is a position which is well settled by authority and which has never been a subject of rebuke.”

Jeremie appeared in association with Attorneys-at-Law Keith Scotland, Mayo Robinson, Roysdale Forde SC, Timothy Affonso and Rondelle Keller. Senior Counsel Reginald Armour of Trinidad and Tobago, who represented the interest of the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) coalition, also put forward similar arguments, and asked that the Court refuse the PPP/C’s application for special leave.

NO JURISDICTION
Trinidad’s Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, who appeared on behalf of the PPP/C, while confirming that the CCJ has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal to a decision made under Article 177 (4), submitted that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the case, and its decision was bad in law.

On that basis, Mendes, whose submissions were endorsed by Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran and Attorneys-at-Law Kashir Khan and Timothy Jonas, argued that the CCJ had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and in hearing the appeal should set aside the decision of the lower court. Further, the attorneys asked the Court to order that the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield’s Elections Report submitted on June 23, 2020 be set aside. This request came notwithstanding the fact that the CCJ last week indicated that it cannot undo what has already been done. The Chair of GECOM, Justice Ret’d Claudette Singh, who opted not to actively participate in the case, has indicated that she will respect the decision of the CCJ. She is being represented by Attorney-at-Law Kim Kyte-Thomas.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_02_2020

Dear Editor
THE recent brouhaha raised by the PPP/C in which they have sought to accuse the APNU+AFC government of ‘’large scale corruption…as Winston Jordan signed off on the transferal of land…” pertaining the vesting orders, signed off by Minister Jordan for lands at Ogle.

Of course, these are accusations that have to do with the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL). NICIL’S FUNCTIONS as custodians of state assets, especially those of lands vested, and its sale of those for investment purposes, which excellent undertaking it has been doing for the benefit of the country and people.
And this current pathway, is unlike the NICIL of pre-May 2015, when this body functioned in a shadowy environment, transacting deals with its details which were largely secret – a case in point being the Marriot Hotel. No doubt, that its former chairman, and CEO are facing criminal charges relative to the institution’s transactions.

Editor, it is pertinent here to explain that the NICIL that functions today is of a progressive and economically-vibrant type, which transactions removes it from the cloak and dagger, smoky room type of deals. In fact, every one of its transactions have been publicised, with the names of investors, and the purpose for the sale of land, and where these are located. Unlike, the old order, which were about friends and cronies – the current transactions are not.
Further, the proceeds from these transactions have been directed towards the refurbishment/enhancement of important social landmarks which were neglected and fell into disuse, during the tenure of PPP/C governance. Today, these renewed entities have been a source of garnering revenue for communities and State.

Now to the current attempts by agents of the PPP/C to suggest dishonesty on the part of the government, as what had been done, following the NCM, accusing the administration of massive land give away to prominent Afro-Guyanese and the latter of participation in land grabbing. Made by none other than the leader of the political opposition, these lies were not only shot down by especially the formidable Geotechnical Engineer, Charles Ceres, defending himself; but who also went on to expose the ugly hypocrisy and double standards of land leasing policy under the PPP/C government. Mr. Ceres also sued Jagdeo, and was successful, as his court suit disproved Jagdeo’s lie. Editor, I have digressed somewhat, but only to give contextual background to another groundless assault on the government, and NICIL’S policy with regards sale of state lands.

Editor, NICIL has since debunked the PPP/C’s spurious claims and pointed out that NICIL received deposits for the lands commencing December 2019 for the transformational Ogle Development project, however, the transactions remained incomplete since the vesting orders were not ‘signed and gazetted’ as required by law and this meant that the remaining sums could not be paid over by the investors. The need for expediency in the payments for land, however, arose after the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) made public its financial crisis.

As NICIL had explained, “… that GuySuCo and the bond holders were in the process of ironing out some matters so that further disbursements could be had. But NICIL, having recognised the urgency of the request, sought to complete the land transactions. It therefore became necessary to regularise the Vesting Orders.”

Though one will agree that NICIL is the custodian of state assets, those with regard to lands have to be vested in the institution with an authorisation for sale to prospective investors, which it has been doing. However, the attempts at misinformation on NICIL’S present transactions, by the political surrogates, seem to have been because of a technicality, surrounding its only recently gazette order for lands vested in its authority, ever since and which transactions for sale to investors would have been entered sometime in 2019. In other words, the completion of such transactions, which have been in train for some time, remained incomplete because of a technicality. That has now been remedied, hence the finalisation of the transactions.

As a reminder: NICIL, functions as a wholly autonomous body, unlike during the regime of the PPP/C, and makes its own decisions, as could be understood from the manner of its present operations. Its portfolio speaks for itself, since it is led by a dynamic young man of strategic vision whose successes are there for the record. It is time that those elements which were aligned with ancient and anti-state and discriminatory policies, understand that the era for dubious deals for close associates and cabal types are over. It has since become a brand-new day; so, let NICIL continue to play its vital role in developmental nation building.

Regards
Earl Hamilton

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_02_2020

Dear Editor
During his online public briefing yesterday, PPP/C Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, stated that the Guyana Election Commission (GECOM) “is the only body that can make the decision and declaration of the results”. That position mirrors what President Granger has repeatedly said since the conclusion of the March 2 elections, when the PPP/C ‘declared’ itself the winner, and a few foreign diplomats and local organisations blindly accepted the PPP/C declaration. Had Jagdeo accepted what Granger had been saying all along, then it is possible that the elections crisis would have ended weeks ago. But, as they say, better late than never. Perhaps Jagdeo will now order the removal of those billboards declaring Irfan Ali the President-elect of Guyana.

A remaining difference of opinion between the two leaders is whether the GECOM declaration should include all votes, or only valid votes. The question seems elementary, yet here we are, months after the elections, having to ask the country’s highest court to decide that simple question. The Guyana Court of Appeal not surprisingly ruled that the word “votes” is intended to mean “valid votes”. Despite that ruling, Jagdeo and the PPP/C continue to pressure the international community to support its call that all votes, including those of people who died before elections day must be counted. It seems that Jagdeo is arguing that the dearly departed have the right to elect their leaders. Senator Marco Rubio, residing in Florida, seems to agree as he and a handful of others called on GECOM to count those dead people votes. In a normal world, ballots cast by dead people are not valid, and cannot be counted. Plain and simple!

Then we have those who seek to use the CARICOM report to justify the argument that all votes, including invalid ones must be used to declare the results. The author of the CARICOM report was careful to note that the election was “reasonably credible”. Everyone knows that an election can be credible or not credible. Just like a woman can be pregnant or not pregnant. She cannot be ‘reasonably pregnant’. The only explanation for the curious choice of words in the CARICOM report is that the author did not want CARICOM to be dragged deeper into Guyana’s internal conflict. The report was therefore written to give both parties a win, and to allow CARICOM to take a non-committal / neutral position. The report was not intended to be used as a basis for the declaration of the results, but as a guide for the Chief Elections Officer as he decides how to tabulate the votes.

The CARICOM report is indeed very instructional. Even though the CARICOM scrutineers observed less than 20 per cent of the boxes, they were able to determine that the integrity of the electoral system was compromised. At that point, they may have applied the ‘cockroach rule’ in deciding that they did not need to observe more boxes. The ‘cockroach rule’ was articulated during the OJ Simpson trial when a forensic scientist noted that “if you find a cockroach in your soup, you do not try to see how many cockroaches there are; you simply conclude that the soup is no good”. The Chief Elections Officer attempted to take that route in presenting his first report that the credibility of the elections could not be ascertained. The GECOM Chairman reportedly rejected that report. The Judicial branch was then called upon to intervene, and now that the Court of Appeal ruling instructed that only valid votes be counted, Keith Lowenfield must comply. To do otherwise would place him in contempt.

Those valid votes show that David Granger has won reelection. The Irfan Ali victory billboards must therefore be taken down! Jagdeo and the PPP/C have the option to file an election petition if they disagree with Lowenfield’s report – but they should first take down those billboards and accept that their propaganda priming was unsuccessful.

Respectfully
Max Mohamed

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_02_2020

…Alexander says as he heads into today’s GECOM meeting

By Svetlana Marshall
AHEAD of today’s meeting of the Elections Commission, longstanding GECOM Commissioner, Vincent Alexander, has vowed to make his voice heard, saying that there will be no silence on the push by a faction of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to dishonour the Recount Order, which was birthed from a commitment to determine a “final credible count” of the votes cast at the General and Regional Elections held five months ago.
“I will continue to let my voice be heard and call it as I see it. There will be no void or silence in the face of GECOM’s frolic and attempt to misuse the output of the Order,” Alexander told the Guyana Chronicle on Saturday.

Today’s meeting, which is scheduled to commence at 10:00hrs, comes three days after the Court of Appeal upheld Order 60 and by extension the 33-day National Recount, on the grounds that any challenge to the legality of the process employed by GECOM or allegations of electoral fraud or irregularities must be done in the form of an Elections Petition following the official declaration of the results of the elections.

The Appellate Court had ruled on the Misenga Jones Case approximately three weeks after the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) had handed down a judgment in the Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo v Eslyn David and others case. In its ruling on July 8, the CCJ, while ‘endorsing’ the National Recount, ruled that there no order could result in a new electoral regime but most importantly, that then the election of the president and members of the National Assembly must be done based on information supplied by the Returning Officers in accordance with the Representation of the People Act.

“The Presidential candidate on the list for which more votes have been cast than any other list is deemed to be elected as President, and the Chairman of GECOM must so declare. Both the allocation of seats in the National Assembly and the identification of the successful Presidential candidate are determined on the sole basis of votes counted and information furnished by returning officers under the Representation of the People Act,” the CCJ had ruled.

Notably, the procedure for determining valid votes during the national recount varied from the guidelines outlined in the Act, and added to that, there were no Returning Officers during the recount exercise. According to Alexander, the CCJ’s judgment was inconsistent.

“There were internal inconsistencies in the last CCJ ruling and the subsequent cases of stood on and replicated those inconsistencies. There is no basis for the half use of the Order. I maintain that GECOM could have called the elections for what it was and refuse to declare,” Alexander explained.

The National Recount, conducted at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC), unearthed massive irregularities and cases of voter impersonation. According to the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield there were well over 2,000 irregularities that were unearthed during the recount from missing List of Electors to missing Oaths of Identity and Certificates of Employment. Additionally, there over 4,000 cases of voter impersonation – as a result of this, persons voted on behalf of the dead and Guyanese residing overseas. It was against this background that the Chief Elections Officer had indicated that he could not have determined a final credible count but the Chairman of the Elections Commission, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, while describing the irregularities and allegations of voter impersonation as grave, said there was little that the commission could do, and as such, she has insisted that an Elections Report be produced based on the Certificates of Recount generated during the National Recount. It is unclear whether the Chief Elections Officer will be submitting his report today, with the Courts having ruled but Alexander is adamant that there be no declaration.

While making a case for non-declaration last month, Alexander had said while Article 162 does not confer the specific power of annulment, it empowers GECOM “to take such action as appear necessary or expedient to ensure impartiality and fairness.” He said the degree of corruption unearthed during the national recount is so grave that it is “impossible” for the commission to declare a result.

“I posited then that only a new election could ensure the enfranchisement of the eligible voters, and the determination of the result based on the value of the individual eligible votes cast. Since then many pundits, home and abroad, have expressed their views on the need for a Declaration; and what should be declared etc. I am therefore, herein, rearticulating my pre, peri and post elections positions in an effort to separate myself from the ‘wannabe knowledgeables’, since my articulation would be facts-based and dismissive of the contentions of many of the pundits,” Alexander said.

In doing so, he pointed to five primary facts – that the Official List of Electors is significantly bloated having a voting population of 660,998 persons when the country’s population is 750,000; the bloated list is as a result of the thousands of Guyanese who died or migrated but were not removed from the National Register of Registrants Database (NRRDB); and the national recount confirmed that unscrupulous people voted in the place dead and persons, who were out of the jurisdiction.
On basis of his initial position that no voter should be disenfranchised and only valid votes should be counted, Alexander said the solution to the challenges currently before the commission is for a non-declaration, and a for a new process to be initiated that reaffirms the enfranchisement of all and negates the impact of fraudulent votes.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_8-2-2020