WHEN the pens of historians attempt to document and investigate the Guyana elections 2020, it is difficult to see how questions about doubts over what exactly was the will of the Guyanese people expressed on March 2, 2020. In this, they will be compelled to castigate or pour scorn on the long delay which, if prosecuted fairly, will invariably conclude that the will of the people delayed is the will of the people denied. Even if only by public perception, the verdict delivered by the Guyanese people on March 2 has been blurred to the point of being extremely dubious due to five months of cataclysmic political, geopolitical, electioneering and constitutional wrestling. As a consequence, it would be ill-advised and counterproductive to have a candidate become President or a government formed based on this murky series of events.
The mother of all elections has been vastly compromised and for this reason, justice, fairness and stability lie in fresh elections.

JUSTICE, FAIRNESS AND ELECTIONS
There is absolutely no debate over the inseparable connection between justice, fairness and work of key institutions in any given polity. These institutions remain the repositories for the sacred principles mentioned above. In this regard, elections commissions are charged with the responsibility of delivering arguably the most important of these noble ideals in a democracy. That being, free, fair and credible elections which, if executed most transparently and swiftly, teems with the potential to lift a nation to unheralded levels of national confidence and if not, the possibility of chaos is ever-present. As such, public trust, public confidence and above all, public perception of the electoral process, elections bodies, and elections officials are of non-negotiable supreme importance. In discussing electoral integrity, the Global Commission on Elections, Democracy and Security noted: “at its root, electoral integrity is a political problem. It depends on public confidence in electoral and political processes. It is not enough to reform institutions; citizens need to be convinced that changes are real and deserve their confidence. Inclusiveness, transparency and accountability are all fundamental to developing that confidence’. In this regard, the delay of an election result by five-six months in the context of the cauldron of politics in a highly-polarised multi-ethnic society makes it virtually impossible to achieve the kind of public trust and confidence that ought to accompany elections in a fledging democratic society. The series of events and the conduct of the media, political actors, diplomats and members of the Guyana Elections Commission within this regrettable electoral interregnum have completely torpedoed any chance of a candidate and team acceding to office with the most basic confidence of the population. In such a context, in the interest of nation-building should, it is never wise to proceed on a zero-sum game.

IMPLICATIONS
Any government or leader who proceeds based on the dubious raw national recount numbers will face a daunting task to exercise tutelage over large swathes of communities across Guyana. Such a circumstance will undoubtedly result in lawful resistance which will make it near impossible to govern with the legitimacy that is required for a country on the cusp of tectonic transformations at the ‘mother of all elections.’
In addition to this, once there is legal resistance, the state apparatus will respond with repressive tactics and therein lays the definite emergence of a repressive state. For this reason and others previously mentioned, the pleadings of Kofi Annan are quite applicable: “Elections are at the heart of democracy. When conducted with integrity, they allow citizens to have a voice in how and by whom they are governed”.

FRESH ELECTIONS
In consideration of all things mentioned thus far, it would be prudent to consider fresh elections after the rule of an interim government whose main purpose would be to pass a new Electoral Reform Bill. This writer is absolutely convinced that the elections enlightenment Guyanese have received over the past months, has provided enough civic education that makes them much the wiser about our electoral system. As a consequence, with a new Electoral Reform Bill and an elections savvy citizenry, it would be difficult for persons to cast doubts over the results without solid evidence. This approach will certainly imbue the necessary public confidence that ought to ensure any government that accedes from the results, can retain airtight legitimacy.

In conclusion, when the March 3 Region Four declarations were completed, a section of the population got their justice by engaging in extra-legal agitations. That justice was delivered in the form of the national recount. After this, the national recount’s unverified numbers sparked a sense of injustice on the part of another section of the population. The only way to ensure justice, fairness and stability is achieved is to either sort the data to produce a credible result, or allow for a non-declaration that will facilitate fresh elections.

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

Dear Editor,
I am a medical consultant in Acute Medicine. One day my CEO gave me a call to inform me that there is a crisis in Accident and Emergency where many critically ill patients are awaiting beds in Acute Medicine. I was then instructed by said CEO to discharge as many patients as possible so as to create beds for those in Accident and Emergency. On receiving this instruction I gathered up my junior doctors to an impromptu ward rounds. Unfortunately I was not able to discharge any patient despite my best effort.

Mr. Editor, what have you noticed about that narrative? You would have noticed that the CEO made a request i.e. patients being discharged. She was not prescriptive in how I arrive at that that outcome. Also in that request she recognised that the outcome could have been neutral, i.e. no patients discharge. The question that may be asked by many is why the CEO showed deference despite I am being under her control? The answer is simple. Control is not analogous with dictate. Simply put, the CEO recognised, both her limitations and my professional expertise hence I was permitted to do what I was contracted to do.

Now let’s examined the storm in a teacup between GECOM CEO, Mr. Keith Lowenfield and Chairwoman ret. Justice Claudette Singh. Both the High Court and the Appeal Court ruled that Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield is a creature of GECOM and is subject to their control. That is not unusual since all employees are under the control of their employers to the extent that is described in their contract. Now let’s do a closer examination of the word “control.” The Merriam Webster dictionary defines control as “the ability to direct the actions of someone or something.” To translate, this means that the Chairwoman can direct the CEO to prepare a report but she cannot dictate to him on the methodology of the report preparation, its tabulation and ultimately his conclusion.

So where do we go from here? To offer an opinion, I will need to place myself in Mr. Lowenfield unenviable shoes. So with me being Mr. Lowenfield, I would have fed the Chairwoman and all involved, rightfully or wrongfully, their exact words. I would have prepared a report taking into consideration all that was evident at the recount stations. It is irrelevant whether the process was unconstitutional. The important issue is that the process was transparent, CCJ words, and witnessed by all. That would have informed my decision on the advice to the Chairwoman. Using her words, I would have stated that based on the “serious anomalies,” her own words, seen at the transparent recount process, I would humbly advise that a non-declaration should be made. Many may argue that article 177(4) states that a declaration must be made. I would argue that the constitution never stated what type of declaration must be made. It could be a positive declaration which is a winner, it could be a non-declaration which is neutral or it could be a negative declaration which is a loser. The constitution never stated that the CEO must be specific in his advice i.e., declare a winner. It simply stated that he must advise on a declaration. Once provided with the CEO advice, where he clearly followed the court rulings, the Chairwoman is obligated to follow his advice. If she chooses to be a Lone Ranger (CJ words), then we will have serious problems and the President may need to intervene. This is my argument for which I’m abundantly confident.

Regards
Dr. Mark Devonish MBBS MSc Med. Ed

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

THE untimely access to the written judgment of the Full Court in the recount injunction case forced a cancellation of a planned meeting of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) on Wednesday, which was aimed at charting a way forward.

Explaining the same to this newspaper on Wednesday, GECOM Public Relations Officer, Yolanda Ward, said that the Commissioners were expected to meet at 10:00hrs Wednesday but the written judgement was only made available at around 12:00hrs. She said that, based on the position of GECOM Chair, Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh, if the Commission had gone ahead with the meeting, those present would not be deliberating from an informed position — a situation she would not encourage. Upon receipt, the written judgement was immediately dispatched to the Commissioners and the meeting was rescheduled for today.

In a message to the media, Ward stated: “There won’t be a Commission meeting today {yesterday}. The decision of the Court will be studied today and the meeting tomorrow.”
Members of the Opposition and Opposition-nominated Commissioners later accused the Commission and Government-nominated commissioners of engaging in delaying tactics. In a supporting letter, the PPP Commissioners Sase Gunraj, Bibi Shadick and Robeson Benn, stated that they received an email from the Chair’s Office which stated that the Government-nominated Commissioners had requested time to “read the decision of the full court”.

“This is unacceptable. The judgment of the Full Court was broadcast live on national media. The world had access to it. The judgment was pellucid and requires little explanation, if any,” their letter stated.

“We recall the numerous occasions on which such stalling measures were employed with the inevitable result being to facilitate some dilatory tactic or the other. A meeting should be called immediately. There are legal and constitutional remedies for non-attendance.”

He called the matter to the attention of local and foreign observers and the international community as “further attempt to delay the conclusion of the electoral process”. Adding his voice to the matter was People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Executive and Attorney-at-Law, Anil Nandlall argued on his Facebook page that the ruling of the Full Court was streamed live and was widely reported on and therefore all should be well aware of the contents.

“What nonsense do we hear now about a “study” of the Full Court’s ruling? People’s patience running thin with these asinine disclosures. The Chairperson of GECOM must act now and decisively so. It is the only way that she can salvage herself and the electoral process!” he stated. Accused of requesting for the study of the written judgement, Government-nominated Commissioner, Vincent Alexander denied —- providing proof — that he had not done same.

“The public has been misinformed. I never requested time to read the document,” he said.
“The Chairperson said she wanted to get the document for the meeting. They sent an invite and I said to her, probably you should determine the time of the meeting based on when you receive the document.”

He provided the newspaper with evidence of the said correspondence. In response to the invitation sent out by mail on Tuesday to meet on Wednesday, Alexander had written: “I am on standby; however, I think it is advisable to determine the timing of the meeting based on the availability of the written decision which should be discussed at the meeting.”
Speaking for himself, he maintained that he stands available to meet as a Commission when such a meeting is called. On Tuesday, overruling a decision by High Court Judge Franklin Holder, the Full Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case brought by Ulita Moore challenging the decision of GECOM to facilitate a national recount.

It was ruled on the grounds that the issues raised could only be dealt with by way of an Elections Petition.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_02_2020

Private citizen Ulita Moore, has filed an appeal, challenging a ruling by the Full Court that the Court has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) outside of an Elections Petition.

The Full Court’s ruling on Tuesday overturned an earlier decision by Justice Franklin Holder that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the case brought by Moore challenging GECOM’s decision to facilitate a National Recount of all the votes cast at the March 2 Elections.

The decision of the Full Court, delivered by Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire and Justice Nareshwar Harnanan, in effect discharged the interim injunctions granted by Justice Holder and dismissed Moore’s Fixed Date Application (FDA).

But it was not long after that Moore moved to the Court of Appeal, and filed a Notice of Appeal to challenge the decision of the Full Court.

According to the Notice of Appeal seen by Guyana Chronicle, the case is being brought against the Guyana Elections Commission, the Chairman of GECOM, the Chief Elections Officer, Mark France, Daniel Josh Kanhai, John Flores and Bharrat Jagdeo by Moore.
In the application, Moore, through her attorneys Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and Mayo

Robertson, told the Appellate Court that the Full Court erred in law when it ruled that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear or consider the FDA.

Moore’s Attorneys told the Appellate Court that the Full Court, “failed to properly construe the legislative regime governing disputes in relation to Elections and in particular Section 140 of the Representation of the People Act.”

The Chief Justice, in handing down the ruling, had said that the Section 140 (1) of the Representation of the People Act precludes the Court from intervening in the decision making of GECOM except by way of an Elections Petition, however, Moore’s attorneys told the Court of Appeal that the Full Court failed to effectively consider the terms and effect of Section 140 (1) as well as the nature and effect of the relief sought.

Moore had filed the FDA in the High Court on March 17 with the intention of preventing a recount of the ballots and to have a President of Guyana declared, but Jagdeo, the seven named respondent, had challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case. It was that challenge that led to the Full Court’s decision on March 31. But Moore is maintain that the Court can facilitate a Judicial Review of the decisions of GECOM as raised in the FDA.
“The decision of the Full Court is bad in Law and the Intended Appellant/Applicant ought to be granted leave to file an appeal against the decision of the said Full Court,” her Lawyers submitted.

Forde and Robertson pointed out that the Court of Appeal Act, Chapter 3:01 provides for leave to be granted for the filing of a Notice of Appeal, appealing a decision of the Full Court.

Immediately after the ruling on Tuesday, Robertson had requested leave from the Court to file an appeal at the level of the Court of Appeal but that was refused by the Full Court. “In relation to the application for leave to appeal, the court is unanimous in refusing this application on the basis that this court, whilst acknowledging this is a serious issue by the parties, finds there is no real prospect of success of an appeal,” Justice Harnanan said as he, on behalf of the Full Court, also refused the application for a stay.

The Appellate Court is likely to consider Moore’s Notice of Appeal today.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_02_2020

Private citizen Ulita Moore, has filed an appeal, challenging a ruling by the Full Court that the Court has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) outside of an Elections Petition.

The Full Court’s ruling on Tuesday overturned an earlier decision by Justice Franklin Holder that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the case brought by Moore challenging GECOM’s decision to facilitate a National Recount of all the votes cast at the March 2 Elections.

The decision of the Full Court, delivered by Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire and Justice Nareshwar Harnanan, in effect discharged the interim injunctions granted by Justice Holder and dismissed Moore’s Fixed Date Application (FDA).

But it was not long after that Moore moved to the Court of Appeal, and filed a Notice of Appeal to challenge the decision of the Full Court.

According to the Notice of Appeal seen by Guyana Chronicle, the case is being brought against the Guyana Elections Commission, the Chairman of GECOM, the Chief Elections Officer, Mark France, Daniel Josh Kanhai, John Flores and Bharrat Jagdeo by Moore.
In the application, Moore, through her attorneys Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and Mayo

Robertson, told the Appellate Court that the Full Court erred in law when it ruled that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear or consider the FDA.

Moore’s Attorneys told the Appellate Court that the Full Court, “failed to properly construe the legislative regime governing disputes in relation to Elections and in particular Section 140 of the Representation of the People Act.”

The Chief Justice, in handing down the ruling, had said that the Section 140 (1) of the Representation of the People Act precludes the Court from intervening in the decision making of GECOM except by way of an Elections Petition, however, Moore’s attorneys told the Court of Appeal that the Full Court failed to effectively consider the terms and effect of Section 140 (1) as well as the nature and effect of the relief sought.

Moore had filed the FDA in the High Court on March 17 with the intention of preventing a recount of the ballots and to have a President of Guyana declared, but Jagdeo, the seven named respondent, had challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case. It was that challenge that led to the Full Court’s decision on March 31. But Moore is maintain that the Court can facilitate a Judicial Review of the decisions of GECOM as raised in the FDA.
“The decision of the Full Court is bad in Law and the Intended Appellant/Applicant ought to be granted leave to file an appeal against the decision of the said Full Court,” her Lawyers submitted.

Forde and Robertson pointed out that the Court of Appeal Act, Chapter 3:01 provides for leave to be granted for the filing of a Notice of Appeal, appealing a decision of the Full Court.

Immediately after the ruling on Tuesday, Robertson had requested leave from the Court to file an appeal at the level of the Court of Appeal but that was refused by the Full Court. “In relation to the application for leave to appeal, the court is unanimous in refusing this application on the basis that this court, whilst acknowledging this is a serious issue by the parties, finds there is no real prospect of success of an appeal,” Justice Harnanan said as he, on behalf of the Full Court, also refused the application for a stay.

The Appellate Court is likely to consider Moore’s Notice of Appeal today.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_04_02_2020

THE Private Sector Commission (PSC), in a letter to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), has proposed that the National Recount be streamed to those observers who will not be present during the tabulation process, due to restrictions instituted to suppress the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19).

In its proposal, the PSC has indicated that Opposition-affiliated Channel 28 (TVG) is willing to stream the recount at no cost to the Elections Commission. The proposal was among issues that were discussed when the Elections Commission met on Wednesday to further deliberate on the National Recount, a decision on which is still pending.

In total, five international observer groups have been accredited for the March 2 General and Regional Elections: The Carter Center, the European Union (EU), the Organisation of American States (OAS), the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and the Commonwealth; and 13 local organisations, including the PSC, the US Embassy, the Canadian High Commission, and the British High Commission. However, due to the need to maintain physical distancing at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre, venue of the recount, the Elections Commission took the decision that there be no more than one local, and one international observer assigned to a workstation at any given time.

ROTATION SYSTEfM
The Commission noted, however, that the local and international observers can put a rotation system in place.
In an interview with reporters outside of GECOM’s Headquarters, Opposition-nominated Commissioner Sase Gunraj, whose Motion to have the National Recount live-streamed was rejected, said the PSC, in making its proposal, noted that Channel 28 has the technology to do live-streaming, and is willing to provide its service at no cost to the Elections Commission.
However, Government-nominated Commissioner Vincent Alexander, in a separate interview, made it clear that the PSC did not propose that the recount be live-streamed to the public.
“What they were proposing,” he explained, “is that we stream to those observers who will not be able to be in attendance, because we would have restricted the number of observers to one foreign and one local to every station.”
Iterating that the Private Sector Commission was very specific in its request, Alexander said it was an Opposition-nominated Commissioner who inserted the word, “live”, into the discussion.

LIVE VS PUBLIC STREAMING
“The proposition that came to us is not one for public streaming; it is one for streaming for observers, though there is a Commissioner who interpreted it to mean public streaming, and sought to open the question of public streaming,” Alexander said.
According to him, during the discussion on the proposal, two primary concerns were raised, namely, the lack of control over streaming, and the reported bias on the part of Channel 28.
“One concern is, while they are saying they want to stream to these observers, obviously that will be offsite, and GECOM would have, in so far, no control of the attendees, and therefore we have no guarantee that, given the manner of the behaviour at Ashmins [building], that such a forum would not be opened to everyone,” Alexander explained.
Section 90 of the Representation of the People Act prohibits live-streaming or public disclosure of the tabulation of votes, and, as such, it is important for the process not to be exposed to the public. Section 90 of the Representation of the People Act states: “Every person attending at the counting of votes shall maintain, and shall not communicate any information obtained at the recount, as to the list of Candidates for which any vote has been given.”
Secondly, Alexander said some Commissioners objected to Channel 28 facilitating the streaming of the recount, based on their assessment of the television station’s track record. “There were some Commissioners who were of the view that that news outfit, in its reporting, has been biased, and, therefore, we were not inclined to give that kind of opportunity to a news outfit which has been pre, prior and post-election biased,” the Commissioner said.

CHAIR WILL DECIDE
Both Alexander and Gunraj indicated that GECOM Chairman, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh will decide whether to accept or reject the proposal, based on the discussion of the Commission, and the Electoral Laws of the country.
Last Friday, in rejecting a Mmotion by Gunraj to have the recount live-streamed from start to finish, the GECOM Chair referenced Section 90 of the Representation of the People Act. That Act, the GECOM Chair emphasized, speaks to the secrecy of the tabulation process. “Because of the secrecy, they cannot show the ballot; but what they can do, they can show the results after it would have been tabulated. I have no problem with that,” Justice Singh had explained in an interview with the Guyana Chronicle.

Apart from the proposal made by the PSC, Commissioner Alexander said that during Wednesday’s meeting, the Commission spent a considerable amount of time discussing issues that have already been decided upon. He posited that there is an Opposition-nominated Commissioner who is bent on revisiting issues already addressed. Though the Elections Commission has long decided on the methodology for the recount, and the number of persons that will be assigned to each of the 10 workstations, Alexander said the issues were again raised, in addition to that of “live- streaming”.

“We don’t have the understanding of how a Commission works; if a Commission makes a decision, notwithstanding your dissenting views, it’s a Commission decision, and a Commission cannot ad nauseam be reopening, reopening, and reopening its decisions. But that’s the mode of operation we are faced with, where people who are democrats; who talk about democracy, and who see this entire exercise as related to democracy, not understanding the democracy of the Commission where decisions are made, and you get on with the business,” Alexander said.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_01_2020

AHEAD of the highly-anticipated national recount, the Guyana Elections Officer (GECOM) conducted a training session with more than 80 of its employees, detailing the procedures that would be employed once the recount commences.

The exercise was conducted on Thursday at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC) where the votes cast at the March 2 General and Regional Elections will be recounted under the watch of a high-level Caribbean Community (CARICOM) team. Chair of GECOM, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh; and the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield were among the officials who were present.

On the margins of the training session, GECOM’s Public Relations Officer (PRO), Yolanda Ward, told reporters that the approved operational plan for the national recount was explained in detail to the elections officers.

According to that plan, there will be 10 workstations operating for a period of 11 hours – from 08:00hrs to 19:00hrs on a daily basis. Eight of the 10 workstations will have no more than 14 persons assigned inclusive of four GECOM personnel, while the other two workstations will have no more than 10 persons. Each workstation will have a supervisor.
“The process this morning is basically to go through the methodology that has been developed for the recount, to apprise the staff of the procedures that it entails and actually to give them a walk through as to the respective stations that they will be at,” Ward explained.

Importantly, she said, the recount, which for a large part entails tabulation of the votes for both the regional and general elections, will be executed in accordance with the Constitution and the election laws of the country.

According to the plan, the votes cast in District Four will be tabulated simultaneously with other districts. Of the 10 work stations, three will be assigned to District Four – the country’s largest electoral region. At each workstation, the process would be initiated with a checklist to ascertain the contents of a ballot box. Once that is done, the ballots would be counted in a manner similar to the process employed at polling stations at the close of poll. The votes cast in favour of each List of Representatives will be recorded on Statements of Recount as against a Statements of Poll.

During the tabulation of the votes, each ballot will be projected for scrutiny by those who are entitled to be there such as party agents and observers. GECOM, Ward said, has already sourced high definition cameras and all other equipment necessary to ensure that the ballots and Statements of Recount (SORs) are projected as clearly as possible.
“There is a process in terms of ballots being projected and shown to those persons who will be present at the count for the respective stations…and so those cameras [and other equipment] will be there to ensure that all the participants in the room will be able to see and will be able to scrutinise the ballots,” the PRO explained.

Additionally, the elections officers were briefed on the precautionary measures that would

be enforced throughout the recount, which is expected to span for a period of 25 days. Those measures are reportedly in accordance with guidelines provided by the National COVID-19 Task Force (NCTF). Included in those guidelines is a recommendation that persons involved in the recount at the Conference Centre should have their masks changed every 30-60 minutes, however, Ward said while she is unaware as to whether that particular guideline will be implemented as stated, she is positive that at all times masks will be worn by those involved in the recount.

The other recommendations include the need to sanitise frequently and for all involved to remain hydrated. “Rooms must have a table at the entrance and exit with disposable face masks, hand sanitisers with minimum 70% alcohol, disposable gloves, disposal hand tissue, for example, Bounty tissue, foot pressed type-rubbish bins with garbage bags to avoid touching,” the Task Force said in its report to the elections commission.
That aside, the GECOM Secretariat, Ward noted, is training an excess number of elections officers, some of whom include returning officers, to ensure that at all times, staff are available to execute the mandate of GECOM.

“We intend, in keeping with the COVID-19 guidelines, not to have the staff work every day but on a rotational basis and also to have staff on standby to ensure that we don’t have any slippage or pause in the process to ensure that the recount is done in an expeditious manner,” Ward said.

In keeping with the COVID-19 guidelines, the elections officers involved in the recount process will work every other day. Even as the training was in session, tents were seen being erected on the lawns of the conference centre. On Wednesday, Stain Masters Guyana had commenced the process of cleaning the facility. The building is expected to be fully sanitised before the recount starts.

While the GECOM Secretariat is preparing for the national recount, a date has not been set, however, the elections commission has assured that the recount will commence shortly. It is awaiting an arrival date for the CARICOM high-level team. The CARICOM officials are expected to validate the electoral process.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_01_2020

Dear Editor
Former University of Guyana Lecturer Freddie Kissoon, has become a bitter man after the non-renewal of his contract by University of Guyana several years ago, and has been employed at Kaieteur News as a columnist, which seems to be the major accomplishment of his life; thinks that he can trick people into accepting his unverified opinions as truth.

Freddie Kissoon who has descended into a lunatic with a pen portrays himself as a social analyst and an expert in every field. Freddie Kissoon who is nothing but a social critic, like his counterpart- the Guyanese Critic continues to spew his ink daily in areas that are distant from reality. Freddie who once held placards and made some noise in Jagdeo’s era and was doused with feces is now singing from the same song sheet as Jagdeo.

First, his analysis in the later half of 2019 was that APNU would never form a coalition with AFC. Here Freddie was subliminally trying to cast doubt among APNU-AFC followers. He was never successful in his brainwashing mission since Guyanese, whether or not they hold University Degrees, are rich in common sense. Freddie went on to say that Ramjattan would never be the ANPU-AFC Prime Ministerial Candidate. Ofcourse this prediction was rubbished. Just a few weeks ago, Freddie claimed that there were cracks in the PNC and grave disagreements between Joe Harmon and Granger.

This prediction again was rubbished. Mr. Editor, I have concluded that Freddie uses Kaieteur Newspapers as his platform to advance his PPPC-led, racially-biased and mischievous agenda; but a high school student could see that Freddie’s pen lacks credibility, intellectual analysis and in most cases common sense.

Freddie wrote and said that he saw evidence that the PPP won by over 20,000 votes, securing 34 seats, the coalition 29 and the smaller parties 2 seats. Yesterday, he said that the PPP won by over 17,000 votes.

Would Freddie be willing to tell us when the 3,000 votes disappeared? Freddie’s memory must be failing him. The only thing consistent with Freddie Kissoon’s blog is Bharrat Jagdeo’s claims. Freddie and Jagdeo have been singing from the same song sheet for a long while.

The public has not forgotten that Freddie and Bharrat Jagdeo had several court disputes. Some of these disputes just disappeared into thin air. We would like to know what was used to broker peace between Freddie and Jagdeo? It is public knowledge that during the PPPC era Freddie was doused with Feces by known PPPC operatives- yet for some while now Freddie’s message is identical to that of the PPPC. On different occasions, Jagdeo and his band of followers claimed that they had won by over 20000 votes. On the night of elections, Jagdeo said they won by 18,000 votes. Three days later, he said they won by 15,000. One of their apologists said they won by 16,000 votes. If the PPP and their apologists like Freddie know that they won the elections, why have they failed to be consistent with their figures?

The only thing these individuals have been consistent with is to call for sanctions on Guyana which is nothing but a bluff. It was a sad day in Guyana when the intellectually deprived individuals who belonged to a country, called for sanctions on that country. This is a desperate and poor attempt by Jagdeo and his apologists to play psychological games.
However, to understand what is playing out here, one has to revisit McGuire’s inoculation theory. The theory explains how beliefs and attitudes can be protected in the “face of change”. The desperate and confused individuals and their apologists like Freddie are now relentlessly attacking GECOM and its chairperson. The plan is simple: discredit or kill a recount even before it starts. Thus, when a recount is finally concluded and proves that the PPP lost the elections, free and fair, there will be an exit where Justice Singh will be the whipping bag.

Freddie says that the PNC has gone too far to backtrack. I would similarly say that these naysayers have gone too far to safely backtrack. They have to save face. How? Discredit the chairperson Justice Singh. Freddie says that a post-mortem cannot give a corpse back life. I would say too that constantly attacking GECOM’s Chairperson Justice Retired Claudette Singh will not conjure up a victory for the PPP.
Regards,
Brentnol Holder

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_01_2020

Dear Editor,
GUARDIANS of democracy, they have claimed to be; democrats, always pretended they are; and its tenets they have always been erecting as a false front behind which they and their cohorts of anti-nationals have continued to inflict grievous wounds on this nation.

For these undisguised anti-nationals to have brought us to a point where efforts are now being made to complete not merely a national recount of all the ballots cast on March 2, but also a forensic audit to determine the validity of each vote, and the question as to the credibility of the electoral process is a manifest account and survey as to their attempts to derail the democratic process, which, although they preached from their forked tongues they never practised, because they never believed in its time-honoured values.

There is no question that the type of recount that is ongoing is to establish the truth of the March 02 electoral process; and this seemingly brought about paroxysms of fear for the PPP’s legal officer, Anil Nandlall. His tone of statement, carried in the media, questioning the need for opening the envelopes, and the problems which such action was going to trigger totally betrayed the sense of someone very mortified, realising then/now that the ghosts of PPP/C’s electoral fraud were going to emerge. Remember, this was/is the very senior PPP/C functionary who has been making out a case, along with colleague Gail Teixeira, that what was at stake was the fight for democracy in Guyana. What a claim! What a sham! What a deception, and Region Four SOPs thrown to all those who wanted to be duped!

The fact that Nandlall’s instant initial objection to the thorough analysis that had been gazetted to take place emphatically betrayed his and his party’s deceptive talk of being democrats. For there was no mistaking that his seemingly fearful expression conveyed the fact that there was a lot to hide in those ballot boxes, as criminal electoral acts had taken place. And, this, despite his keeping up appearances of bravado of declaring that his party has nothing to hide.

This is utter bull; poppycock, apart from a gambit to deceive! One only needs to follow closely all of his strategies, inclusive of subtly attempting to bully the GECOM into ignoring what its gazzetted Order had stipulated. His latest act of desperation, of threatening Court action against the electoral body, subscribes to an all-out bid to thwart the GECOM’S mission of uncovering the PPP/C’s acts of electoral fraud.

As to the other so-called Guardians of Democracy, those voices of deception who have each had their masquerading clown’s dress brutally pulled off from their false persona, they have been expectedly silent, not out of shame or disbelief that their political horse’s false mane has been PUBLICLY uncovered, but because THEY HAVE ALL BEEN UNMASKED.

In closing, and as a reminder to the Nandlalls of this world, genuine democracy means, among other things, the all-out effort to reveal the truth, unchecked and unfettered, with a view to unearthing the facts. Further, its practitioner(s) should always want it to be their shining light for honesty and transparency, since, in pursuit of democracy, there must be no objection and fear. This is what the on-going recount is mandated to be all about; establishing of the balloting truth of March 02. No more or less. This quest has caused all the rigging ‘jumbies’ to be released; and they are frightening the hell out of the entire Robb Street cabal, including Nandlall. No amount of ritual of whatever type will ever force them to return to their ballot-box enclaves. Let them continue to come forth.
Regards,
Carla Mendonca

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_01_2020

Dear Editor,
Our fellow Guyanese, we address you because you are our brothers, our sisters, our fathers, our mothers, our neighbours, our cousins and other extended relatives. We live in the same towns, villages, and some of us are from the city of Georgetown. We attended the same schools, churches, masjids and temples. We are one with each other.

More specifically, we have served to protect you in your homes, in your streets. Wherever there was a fracture to the social fabric of society, you called on us and our unswerving duty demanded that we respond to your call. We kept you safe by keeping in custody the delinquents from our communities. We are dispersed from our own families to far-flung interior locations to secure and defend our national sovereignty on our borders. Over the years and even recently, our brothers suffered the ultimate price with their lives.

We endured severe sacrifices. The emoluments we received could hardly have compensated for the hardships and deprivations we suffered. Our families who, were at home, were not immune from the separation and social dysfunctioning occasioned by our absence.

Our greater family of Guyanese, we served for you all. We are all of Guyana. There is absolutely no recognition of ethnic distinctions, religious affiliations, nor gender differentiations. We served you, for you and for the land of our birth.

Our fervent plea at this time is for our currently serving brothers and sisters to be afforded the same dignity and respect enjoyed by all eligible members of the Guyanese society who voted at the March 2020 General and Regional Elections. Members of the Joint Services who voted in the Elections must have their votes totally counted; it is their constitutional right. That right must not be forfeited by any act of malfeasance, ineptitude, ill will, nor victimisation. The duties and attestations to duty inhibit these loyal Guyanese of the Joint Services from publicly ventilating their personal desires and aspirations for the outcome of their votes.

We who served empathise with their pain and suffering, and are competent to speak on their behalf. Our appeal is; rather, our demand, to the duly Endowed Authority is that the votes for members of the Joint Services be counted for all of the ranks who exercised their franchise for the Parties for whom those votes were cast.
This is their legitimate right, as it is, the right for all Guyanese who exercised their franchise.

Byron W. Henry,
Director of Prisons (Retired)

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_01_2020