– PPP/C lead counsel Mendes now agrees CCJ cannot hear appeal under Article 177(4)

By Svetlana Marshall

THE People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), through its lawyers, has conceded that the Caribbean Court of Justice (ICJ) cannot hear an appeal to the Court of Appeal’s decision made under Article 177 (4).

It was under Article 177 (4) that the Court of Appeal interpreted the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b) to mean “more valid votes are cast,” thereby reminding the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) of its responsibility to ensure that the election of a President is done on the basis of valid votes. Notwithstanding the fact that Article 177 (4) states that any decision made by the Court of Appeal, thereunder, is final, the PPP/C, through its General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo, and Presidential Candidate, Irfaan Ali, moved to the CCJ, seeking special leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision.

On Tuesday, Ali and Jagdeo’s lawyers, led by Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, agreed with North Sophia voter, Eslyn David; the Attorney General, Basil Williams; and A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Representative, Joseph Harmon – respondents in the case – that any decision made by the Court of Appeal under Article 177 (4) of the Constitution cannot be appealed.

“The Intended Appellants agree with all three Respondents that by virtue of Section 4(3) of the CCJ Act, this Honourable Court was not vested with jurisdiction to hear any matter in relation to any decision of the Court of Appeal, which, at the time the CCJ Act came into force, was declared to be final. They, therefore, agree that this Honourable Court does not have jurisdiction to hear any matter in relation to a decision made by the Court of Appeal under Article 177(4) of the Constitution,” Mendes submitted to the CCJ on Tuesday in his Submission in Reply.

He said David, Williams and Harmon were correct when they indicated, through their lawyers, that any decision made under Article 177 (4) is final and un-appealable, and as such the CCJ does not have jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal.

“It is therefore unnecessary to traverse the long list of authorities which the First Respondent’s cites on the lack of jurisdiction of the Privy Council to grant special leave to appeal, in the face of a statutory provision making decisions of the Court of Appeal final in election petitions or otherwise,” Mendes and his team told the CCJ, Guyana’s apex court.
But while admitting that the CCJ does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal under Article 177 (4), Mendes contended that the Court of Appeal did not make a decision under Article 177 (4), “since, in the circumstances of this case, it had no jurisdiction to act under Article 177 (4).” The Court of Appeal, in handing down its decision on June 22, had first established jurisdiction before proceeding to interpret the Constitution,as sought in the case – Eslyn David v the Chief Elections Officer and others.

CLEAR DISTINCTION
High Court Judge, Justice Brassington Reynolds, who had formed part of the panel of judges at the Court of Appeal, had said that there is clear distinction between the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal as outlined in Article 177 (4), and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 163 with respect to the validity of the elections.
It was explained that while Article 163 and the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act could only lead to the invalidation of a person elected to the National Assembly.

AG Williams from the outset had said that the decisions of the Court of Appeal made under Article 177 (4) are final as indicated by the Constitution, which ousts all other courts including the Caribbean Court of Justice. He submitted 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. In support of his argument, the Attorney General pointed to Section 4 (3) of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act, which states that “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.”

“It is submitted that Section 4 (3) preserves the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and has overriding effect over any other provision in the CCJ Act. Through the use of the words ‘Nothing in this Act shall confer jurisdiction on the Court…’ the Parliament of Guyana saved the law which speaks to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and reaffirmed the Court of Appeal as the only Court to adjudicate on those matters stated in Article 177 (4),” Williams told the Court.

He explained that while the Caribbean Court of Justice Act clothes the CCJ with both an original and appellate jurisdiction, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is preserved under Section 4 (3) with regards to cases brought under Article 177 (4). From all indication, he said the decisions made by the Court of Appeal under Article 177 (4) of the Constitution are final.

In support of his position, the Attorney General referenced to Thornton’s Legislative Drafting (5TH Edition) and Halsbury’s Laws of England/Statutes and Legislative Process (Volume 96).“Section 4 (3) of the CCJ Act is a saving provision, the intention of which is to narrow the effect and general operation of the CCJ Act in order to preserve the existing jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Appeal under Article 177 (4) of the Constitution from its general operation,” Williams further submitted, noting that the intention of Parliament is unambiguous.

He noted that while Sections 6 and 8 of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act, deal with matters of procedures with respect to the appeals to the Court, those sections are subject to Section 4 (3) which is the substantive provision under the rubric of the “Jurisdiction of the Court.”

Validity of elections

David’s battery of lawyers, led by Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel, John Jeremie; and the Attorney-General had both submitted that the President does not form part of the National Assembly, and as such, the validity of the election of any person to the Office of the President cannot be determined under Article 163, as such could only be done under Article 177(4).

The attorneys also rejected Mendes’ contention that Article 177 (4) could only be invoked following the declaration of the result of the election. Such a move, they warned, could lead to an absurd result with unintended consequences, Jeremie told the CCJ in his submissions.
Further to that, it was submitted that the ouster clause in Article 177 (6), which is triggered after the election, clearly demonstrates why Article 177 (4) provides for questions as to validity of an election to be raised before the Chairman of GECOM declares the election of a President. “A Constitution is not interpreted to have its provisions collide with each other, especially when that would make a mockery of both Article 177 (4) and Article 177 (6),” Jeremie and team submitted.

They added: “Article 177 (4) does not require a completed election of a President in order for the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to be invoked to interpret the Constitution, particularly in relation to matters concerning the election of a President. There is simply no qualification placed on the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, other than that it must concern issues related to the election of a President. The Court of Appeal may interpret the Constitution at any time, upon an application by anyone in this regard. The Court of Appeal has done so here.”

On that as the basis of their arguments, the batteries of lawyers said it is clear that there can be no appeal to the CCJ with regards to matters determined under Article 177 (4) of the Constitution, and lobbied the CCJ to refuse the application for special leave filed by Ali and Jagdeo.

Today, the CCJ will hear arguments on the issue of jurisdiction, the application for special leave, and the substantive matter. It will decide on the issue of jurisdiction first, before proceeding to pronounce on anything else.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-1-2020

…urge swift swearing-in of President Granger

The Mayors of Mahdia, New Amsterdam, Bartica and Linden, have jointly stated that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is in its right to declare President David Granger as President of Guyana based on the report of the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), following the guidance of the Court of Appeal which is final.

This was their message in letter released on Tuesday and signed by Mayor of Bartica, Gifford Marshall; Mayor of Linden, Weneka Arrindell; Mayor of Mahdia, David Adams and Mayor of New Amsterdam, Winifred Heywood. Though the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) case challenging the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to rule that the election of a President must be made on valid votes cast comes up for arguments today, the Mayors pointed to Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution as proof that the Appellate Court’s ruling is final.

In deciding that it has jurisdiction in a case brought by Eslyn David on June 18, 2020, the Court of Appeal had ordered that the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution be interpreted to mean “more valid votes are cast”. Article 177 (4) of the Constitution makes the court ruling final, though the opposition wants the Appellate Court’s decision to be set aside by the CCJ.

However, the Mayors put forward that it is based on the ruling of the court, which is final, that the CEO prepared and submitted his report of only valid votes cast, which should stand as the guidance from which a declaration is made.

“After the completion of this verification, the Chief Elections Officer, Mr. Keith Lowenfield, guided by Section 96 of the People’s Representation Act, Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana and the Court of Appeal in Eslyn David v Chief Elections Officer et al, submitted his repot on June 16, 2020. This report, which is solidly undergirded by the law, clearly shows that the APNU+AFC Coalition won the March 2, 2020 elections,” their statement indicated, adding: “Having regard to the aforementioned, we call on GECOM to complete this election process by making a declaration based on the Chief Elections Officer’s report.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-1-2020

By Lisa Hamilton

PRESIDENT David Granger has stated that while the journey towards an acceptable end to Guyana’s election process has undoubtedly been lengthy, the pending decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is a straightforward and legal process which will lead towards the declaration of the elections results.

On Monday evening, the President appeared as a guest on the ‘Straight Up’ programme on Radio 107.1 where he spoke to the approaching CCJ case; the irregularities uncovered during the national recount and the involvement of the international community.

A LEGAL PROCESS

“We are now in a situation in which the movement forward is quite logical, although it is taking a long time and it’s a bit slow,” the President began, addressing a live audience of over 10,000 listeners. “As we know, the opposition has taken the issue of the validity of the votes to the Caribbean Court of Justice and, the day after tomorrow, Wednesday July 1, the CCJ is expected to hear arguments.”

Though the President views the pursuit of the matter already declared as final by the Appellate Court as “an act of desperation” by the opposition, he nonetheless remains confident that the ruling of the Guyana’s Appeal Court will be upheld. Come July 1, 2020, the CCJ will first determine whether it has jurisdiction to rule on the matter given that Article 177 (4) of the Constitution states that the Appellate Court’s previous ruling, that valid votes must be used to declare the election, is final.

Even so, the President said that he is pleased that, thus far, nothing has been done to remove the process from the authority of the Elections Commission; the courts continue to be respected and the Constitution still prevails. “I have no doubt that in a very short time, and I hope that by this weekend, we will be able to announce to the Guyanese public that the elections process has been brought to an end and a president will be declared,” he said.

INTEGRITY MATTERS

Presently, the recount is only at its Third Phase and the Head of State said that the possibility of the contamination of the ballots cast, as made evident during phase one of the process, must be taken into consideration. Phase one of the recount involved the physical counting of the ballots; Phase two saw the preparation and submission of an Elections Report by the Chief Elections Officer (CEO); Phase three should see deliberation on the said report at the commission level and, phase four, a declaration.

“The process is quite straightforward that the report is not simply an arithmetic report, it is also a qualitative report,” the President said. Pointing to the report and recommendations of the CARICOM Scrutinising Team which was present during phase one of the recount, he said that one can easily discern how seriously they stressed the issue of determining the integrity of the elections process. He expounded: “The team recommended an investigation into missing documents, it recommends total re-registration of all voters in Guyana, it recommends that the structure of the Election Commission be changed, they said that it simply will not work. It finally recommended that, given all the irregularities which occurred during the period of the electoral cycle, ‘we highly recommend that a political audit be conducted of the operations.”

The President urged those both in and out of the country not to run away with the impression that because the numerical tally favored one political party over the other that concerns were not raised by those who were part of the process, such as the CARICOM Team and the CEO. The irregularities highlighted during the recount include counterfoils and ballots carrying the same number; ballots for one region cast in another; ballots cast for the dead and persons who have migrated; persons voting without proper identification; persons voting outside of their districts without employment documents; large numbers of improperly stamped ballots at locations where disciplined services members voted; missing poll books; documents from one polling station being found in the ballot boxes of another and ballot boxes with no single statutory documents.

“This is the reason why, on Monday the 22, the Guyana Court of Appeal ruled that votes must mean ‘valid votes’. If votes are fraudulent or votes exceed the number of people on the [Official List of Electors], they can’t be valid and this is the lesson that the Guyanese population has learnt, that people were meticulously and methodically tampering with the votes,” the President said. He has previously called out the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) for applying a “flaking off” strategy through which ‘a little here and a little there’ amounts to a significant total of the ballots cast.

A HOST OF MISINFORMATION

The President said that there has been a host of misinformation about the elections in Guyana and, frankly put, this must be clarified to truthfully represent the issues facing the country. He said that though his government disagrees with the sentiments shared by some from the international community, it should not be viewed as “international hostility” but as a misunderstanding of what has unfolded in Guyana, the country’s electoral system and its Constitution.

Speaking on the recent input of CARICOM through its Chair, Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, he said: “I have great respect for my Caribbean colleagues. They are concerned, Guyana is the headquarter of the Caribbean Community and, to use a cricketing expression, they stepped out of their crease to come here to bat for Guyana and I think they understand the complexity of the elections in Guyana. I don’t see them as interfering.”

Later, addressing the matter generally, he added: “The critics of the government over the last 119 days must accept that the electoral process was corrupted by the People’s Progressive Party and that has to be brought to an end.”

The Head of State said that he has never interfered in the internal workings of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM); his government remains entirely compliant with the Constitution and he is pleased that Guyana’s election management is being left entirely in the hands of GECOM. He stated “The process is in the hands of the commission, I cannot intervene at this stage, I’ve never intervened before and I will not intervene now. We have a legal process, it is taking a long time, but it is a legitimate process and let us wait to see the outcome.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-1-2020

– but pushes for recount data with anomalies, irregularities, voter impersonation

LEADER of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo says that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) agrees with the APNUI+AFC that an election declaration must be made based on only valid votes, but believes that the version of the recount data which shows over 4,000 cases of voter impersonation, and over 2000 anomalies should be used to make a declaration in his Party’s favour.

“We’re not challenging the validity of the votes; the Court of Appeal ruling that ‘votes’ in our Constitution mean ‘valid votes’ is a non-issue, because it couldn’t mean invalid votes,” the Opposition Leader said on Tuesday during an Online briefing.

However, he went on to argue that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has already determined what the valid votes are through the national recount, and based on and in accordance with the Representation of the People Act. Yet, the Opposition Leader failed to take into consideration Order No. 60 (the recount Oder) which speaks to the determination of “a final credible count” based on the “reconciliation of the ballots issued with the ballots cast” against a number of statutory documents.

NO ISSUE WITH VALID VOTES

High Court Judge, Justice Brassington Reynolds, who formed part of the panel of judges at the Court of Appeal in the Eslyn David v Chief Elections Officer (CEO) et al case, drew attention to the fact that under Order No. 60, the objective was set to determine the “final credible count”.

“Accordingly, I find that GECOM does have a responsibility to determine the final credible count of the results. It would be reasonable to presume that the final credible count would require both quantitative and qualitative assessments of reports, and the summary of observations submitted to the Commission in compliance with Order No. 60 of 2020,” Reynolds had stated.

However, though supporting a declaration based on valid votes on Tuesday, the Opposition Leader simultaneously pushed for the version of the recount data highlighted by the CEO as having over 4,000 cases of voter impersonation and over 2000 anomalies. He argued that the results should be declared on the recount data as is; that any contention should be made through an elections petition, and the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to rule on the matter.

“We don’t have any issue with any Court saying that ‘more votes cast’ means ‘more valid votes’, because we agree with that, in principle; it couldn’t mean otherwise. What we have gone to the Court on is because [the Appeal Court] exceeded that jurisdiction, and interfered with the process of how a President could be challenged, and how the results of the elections could be challenged, and took jurisdiction in areas where they had none,” he said.

JURISDICTION JUSTIFIED

His party’s position, which it has brought to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), is that GECOM is a Constitutional body, and therefore the Court cannot give the Commission orders on what it should do. However, it is based on this position, shared by the Court of Appeal, that it clearly stated during Eslyn David’s case that it has jurisdiction, and subsequent ruling on the matter was based on the powers vested upon it in Article 177 (4) of the Constitution to provide an “interpretation” of Article 177 (2) (b).

Article 177(4) of the Constitution states: “The Court of Appeal shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to the validity of an election of a President, in so far as that question depends upon the qualification of any person for election, or the interpretation of this Constitution; and any decision of that Court under this paragraph shall be final.”

As was later explained by APNU+AFC Elections Manager Joseph Harmon in a written submission to the CCJ by his Trinidadian attorneys, Reginal T.A. Armour and Raphael Ajodha: “In other words, the Court of Appeal made no determination as to whether the votes cast were valid or not, and, imposed no criteria by which the validity of votes would be determined. The Court of Appeal simply exercised its jurisdiction in a limited manner to interpret Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution to mean ‘more valid votes are cast’.”

AGAINST ‘VALID VOTES ONLY’ REPORT

It was on that basis that CEO Keith Lowenfield submitted his Elections Report to the Elections Commission, using only votes which could be validated. “I have taken note of the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Eslyn David v Chief Elections Officer et al in the preparation of my Report under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act and providing advice as required by Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana,” Lowenfield said in his Report submitted to GECOM Chair, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh on June 13.

However, during his Online briefing, Jagdeo maintained his party’s challenge to Lowenfield’s report, contending: “The Court never established the criteria by which the validity of votes would be determined, so, how then would Lowenfield determine that he, unilaterally, citing the Court of Appeal decision, can invalidate 115,000 valid votes. What criteria did he use?”

To answer this question, one must return to the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the words “more votes are cast” should be interpreted to mean “more valid are votes” — which the Opposition Leader states his Party agrees with. One must note the basis upon which the Court made its ruling, as stated by High Court Judge, Justice Brassington Reynolds. He said that under Order No. 60, the objective was set that “…the final, credible count would require both quantitative and qualitative assessments of reports and the summary of observations submitted to the Commission in compliance with Order No. 60 of 2020.”

Therefore, in answering the question of what constitutes a “valid” vote, one must return to Order No. 60 and which was made by the Elections Commission pursuant to its powers under Article 162 of the Constitution and Section 22 of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act, No. 15 of 2000.

The Order outlines the need for the “reconciliation of the ballots issued with the ballots cast, destroyed, spoiled, stamped, and as deemed necessary, their counterfoils/stubs; authenticity of the ballots and the number of voters listed and crossed out as having voted; the number of votes cast without ID cards; the number of proxies issued and the number utilised; statistical anomalies; occurrences recorded in the Poll Book.”

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word ‘reconcile’ as “to make consistent or congruous”. If this is not achieved in some cases during the process, then reconciliation in those cases is not achieved. Even so, the Opposition Leader maintains that the Commission is not bound to accept the CEO’s report, and that “a decision has already been made by the Commission to use the recount data”.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-1-2020

The Inter Religious Organisation (IRO) is calling on the respective political leaders of Guyana to take charge and urge their supporters to remain calm and peaceful as the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) hears arguments in the elections challenge case.

The organisation, in a statement wrote, “IRO continues to pay close attention to the political situation in Guyana. We understand the enormous implications of these elections and we continue to pray and thank God for keeping the citizens engaged, yet calm and respectful. It is obvious that the COVID-19 threat and the political impasse, present a perfect storm of stress for the citizenry.”

Additionally, the organisation stated that to reduce the likelihood of any potential fallout, suggested that the political leaders meet publicly and address the issue of peace and calm and the acceptance of the results, regardless of which party wins and also that the followers of political parties tone down their vitriolic statements on social media and other means of expression.

IRO further stated that persons should refrain from wearing party colours to avoid conflict among each other. The organisation also made a call to media outlets to do their part in publishing content that lends to peace and unity, as well as promote unity and love by playing unifying music, particularly until the results are announced and the dust has settled. Additionally, they urged all religious bodies in the country to uplift the country in prayers. “The IRO believes that in unity there is strength and that if as Guyanese we remain prayerful and join hearts, these difficult times will pass without any escalation of violence or civil unrest, With God’s help we can do this!”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-1-2020

Dear Editor
Let us go down memory lane of not so long ago. Remember opposition leader Bharat Jagdeo’s statement when he tabled the NCM? That the debate would be beneficial to Guyana? Of course, there was a debate that preceded the act of parliamentary treachery – the now infamous Charandass betrayal. We must further remember that what had been significant about this political Judas’ contribution to the NCM motion debate, was his fulsome praise of the coalition party’s socio-economic record of achievements, which in any objective House examination for such a reason of motion, would have been difficult to defeat, or fault.

However, Charandass’ shocking somersault, not only contradicted what he had defended on the floor as his then party’s record of successful national development, but also equally nail the lie that was the pretense of Jagdeo’s motion. The latter was nothing else but a naked act of seeking to remove a government by way of extra parliamentary, under the guise of constitutional means.

Editor, ad nauseam, this has been stated many times over in your Letters column, for persons to understand clearly that this particular act had been the culmination of an orchestrated movement, as evident by the gradual, growing collective of disparate elements, inclusive of the Private Sector and media, spearheaded by the PPP/C opposition, that aimed at fomenting social unrest. It was evident that the resort to racism as a major tool was a means of heightening national stress, as can be clearly seen today.

Yet, it must be understood that the above was a clear manifestation of what had been the new morality of fraud as the national means of justifying whatever ends envisaged, as a way of life, as far as the political opposition and sections of the national demographics. The experience of two decades plus of bad governance, with all acts of criminal manifestations, supports the conclusion of distortion to the national psyche, out of which the new morality has been born. It further underlined the reasons behind the numerous initiatives by the coalition government to explain the deleterious effects of such a cancerous sub social behavior to the future development of the State.

We must now come to the second aspect of this course of dishonest political behaviour – the vehement objections to a new voters’ list that was to have been made possible by house-to-house registration. In this unusual protest, by the political opposition that had always supported such an electoral process, the daily frenetic clamour by the PPP/C and its phalanx of all sorts – mercenaries of varied types – signalled yet another desperate manifestation that playing according to the rules, the principles of political morality, were no longer the gold standard of accepted basic political behaviour.
But this objection to house-to-house registration, which even occasioned a challenge to the

court on its Constitutionality, and witnessed the hypocritical silence of the so called moralists – finally exposed by their public pronouncements that reeked of duplicity and high hypocrisy – was still another act that underlined how deeply engrained the use of intended fraud, and its actuality was becoming standard, as part of opposition electoral politics.

Therefore, the third significance of this effortless use of fraud that has been brutally exposed by the coalition insistence of a full national recount of all ballots cast on March 2, and facilitated by ORDER NUMBER 60 OF THE GAZZETTED ORDER, must now be examined.
The unearthing of the numerous acts of political venalities, speaks of an unbridled recklessness that was extended to what must be described as a nation’s marquee constitutional exercise of its citizens exercising THE FREE WILL. It speaks to the GROSS DISRESPECT OF THE CITIZENS, IN ADDITION TO THE DISREGARD FOR THEIR RIGHT OF ELECTORAL CHOICE.

Editor, it cannot be lost on any political leader, and their followers, and the nation at large, how important a sanitised list is, and must be for the purpose of a national election, and its necessity for free and fair elections which must be transparent. But the mere fact that a major political party would have put up such a life and death struggle to abort this process, speaks as much for its political social orientation as being a promoter, supporter and upholder of electoral fraud. For any political opposition party, or any other associated type to be so recklessly bold, and brazen in utilising the method of fraud in its quest for political power, points to a disregard for the untold consequences which it must hold for national stability.

The fourth example, of the political opposition deceptively ignoring the raison d’etre of the national recount, as exemplified by the dictates of the forte of NUMBER 60 OF THE GAZZETTED ORDER, EMPOWERED BY ARTICLE 162 OF THE CONSTITUTION, is another beastly example of the citadel of fraud, as a normal guide for critical solutions to national affairs. It is an absolute defiance of one’s mental health in comprehending just how could such a signatory to a mechanism for determining credible votes, should subsequently decide to repudiate such findings, and uphold the initial tainted process, as what is legitimate.

Editor, the above are four significant and irrefutable examples that supports the fact of an anatomy of political opposition fraud, beginning with the NCM. This socio-political immorality, of course, having its genesis and growth during over two decades of degrading governance.

Regards
Carla Mendonca

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-1-2020

Dear Editor,

I hope this letter finds you well and also take this time to wish you and all our Guyanese brothers and sisters, home and abroad, safety, love and a Happy 182nd Emancipation Day. In relation to the events of General and Regional Elections 2020 and all that has happened since that fateful day to this present one when the will of the people of Guyana is not yet “officially” clear, officially being the operative term. I have no degrees, doctorates nor diplomas but I have some CSEC subjects and a few CAPE ones and of course, my fair share of common sense. It is against this backdrop, in pursuit of a proper understanding of our current state of affairs, that I consider the following:

1. Paragraph 3. of the introduction of the National Recount Order 2020 which states, “AND WHEREAS, the President and the Leader of the Opposition and all contesting parties agreed to a CARICOM proposal for a total recount of all Electoral Districts as a means of assuaging the contesting parties and determining a final credible count;”
2. Paragraph 8. of the introduction of the Recount Order 2020 which states, “AND WHEREAS, GECOM, in exercise of the authority vested in it by Article 162 of Our Constitution pursuant to Section 22. of the Elections Laws (Amendment) No. 15 of 2000, seeks to remove difficulties connected with the application of ROPA Cap. 1:03, in implementing its decisions relating to the conduct of the aforementioned recount of all ballots cast at the said election, including the reconciliation of the ballots issued with the ballots cast, destroyed, spoiled, stamped and as deemed necessary, their counterfoils/stubs, authenticity of the ballots and the number of voters listed and crossed out as having voted; the number of voters cast without ID;the number of proxies listed and the number utilized; statistical anomalies; occurrences recorded in the Poll Book.
3. Paragraph 1. (b) of the Recount Order which states the role of the Election Commission includes but is not limited to being the final arbiter of issues not resolved at the lower levels of the established procedure; (f) to determine and declare the final results of GRE 2020.
4. Paragraph 11 of the Recount Order which states that the signed matrix produced in accordance with the aforementioned at Paragraph 9 shall then be transmitted to the CEO and copies given to the political parties that contested the Elections, the CARICOM Scrutinising Team, the Chairman and Commissioners and available to the public,
5. Paragraph 12. of the Recount Order which states, “the matrices for the recount of the ten (10) Electoral Districts shall then be tabulated by the CEO and shall be submitted in a report, together with a summary of the observation report for each district, to the Commission”,
Paragraph 14. Which, states, “the Commission shall, after deliberating on the report at Paragraph 11, determine whether it should request the CEO to use the data compiled in accordance with Paragraph 11, as the basis for the submission of the report under section 96. of ROPA Cap. 1:03”,
And finally, the aforementioned section 96. (1) of ROPA Cap. 1:03 which states “the CEO shall, after calculating the total number of valid votes of electors which have been cast for each list of candidates on the basis of the votes counted and the information furnished by the RO’s under section 84. (11), ascertain the election results in accordance with section 97 and 98”.
While the other aspects of both of the source documents are as equally important as the highlighted ones, these indicate to me, the simplicity of this, on so many levels, impactful situation. I call upon all the individuals involved in this process, especially the end which is a beginning also, to think not only of themselves but of our children and our children’s children. Apart from the material benefits generally entitled to all citizens of Guyana which all this fuss has been tied to in many instances, the spiritual and moral gains of our people which controls our general handling of the material realm happens to be involved likewise. I pray that our leaders and those aspiring to become leaders to humbly widen their circumferences of awareness as opposed to being small minded at the detriment of those who faithfully incorporate your leadership into their existence and forget not that the easiest way to defeat a group is from the inside. Let us be instruments of our own destruction no longer. The Almighty, regardless of our perception of Him/Her, never sleeps. God Bless Guyana. God Bless the Human Race.

Regards,
A junior staff member of the Guyana Elections Commission

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_01_08_2020

–or is she just posturing?

Dear Editor,

IN a letter published under the caption, “Guyanese women must say no to the APNU+AFC bullying,” (SN, July 30, 2020), Ms. Gail Teixeira talks about being “angered and embarrassed” at the “vile and baseless attacks” meted out by the APNU+AFC against a number of women, and asserts that, “the APNU+AFC Coalition leaders are bullies.”
Ms. Teixeira’s obvious selective “anger and embarrassment” against “bullyism” towards women is typical of political practitioners posturing conveniently (PPP/C). Ms. Teixeira and her PPP/C comrades now know that the Constitution is the “supreme law” of the land. They didn’t know that when, for twenty years, they refused to hold Local Government Elections (LGEs), which are constitutionally due every three years. When a former foreign diplomat talked about it, the PPP/C sent one of their ministers to “feral blast” him at his residence. When they were in power, the supremacy of the Constitution was subject to the convenient political posturing of the PPP/C.

But back to Ms. Teixeira and her “anger and embarrassment” at “bullyism” against women. When the former First Lady Varshnie Singh – before she was unceremoniously stripped of the Title – was treated like a piece of trash by her supposed-to-have-been husband, then President Bharrat Jagdeo, in the house that was paid for by the State, did Ms. Teixeira think that that was something for her to be angry and embarrassed about? When one Peeping Tom contributor penned an article, calling the issue a “private affair;” and when those sentiments were echoed by a prominent male religious leader, did that provoke Ms. Teixeira’s ire?
When the late Janet Jagan took a principled stand against what she saw as Mr, Jagdeo’s attack on the press, he relegated her to a status of “just a private citizen.” In other words, she should “just shut up.” That is something that Mr. Jagdeo would never have entertained, not even as a thought, if Dr. Jagan was alive. Did that stir Ms. Teixeira’s wrath against “bullyism against women”? Did she call out Mr. Jagdeo’s sexism? When Mr. Jagdeo labeled a group of protesting women, “loonies from the fringes,” did Ms. Teixeira defend their right to peaceful protest? Mr. Jagdeo could have been gracious to the women. He didn’t have to agree with their position but he could have, at least, demonstrated his own respect for women.

Instead, in his typical condescending fashion when faced with opposition, he described them in the lowest and most grotesque fashion allowed in public. Was that considered “bullyism” in Ms. Teixeira’s thinking?
When the once fearsome black clothes (rogue) police ranks, reportedly, “kicked up” those women in Wellington Street, the word that came from the highest echelons of her party were, “If women behave like men, they will be treated like men.” Did Ms. Teixeira consider the police’s action as “bullyism”? And did she get angry and feel embarrassed about her party’s response? Perhaps that was a different breed of women. When Ms. Teixeira’s colleague doused that female activist with his famous SSS, threatening to “Slap that piece of Sh*t” or get his “girls to Strip” her, did Ms. Teixeira’s anger burn within her, that a powerful male Minister of Government could be so crass and demeaning towards a woman? Was she embarrassed about that?

More recently, when that male lawyer, publicly, threatened that female rank on the steps of the GECOM facility (Hadfield and High Streets), calling on “Dr. Alli” to “remember her face, because she should know that [if] the government changes, she is out of a job.” (That young woman was carrying out the orders of her functional superiors.) Wasn’t that something that Ms. Teixeira should have been angry and embarrassed about? As someone who is, supposedly, supportive of women and is opposed to their being “bullied,” wasn’t that something that she should have said, NO” to? Wasn’t that an absolute “bullyism”?
In her missive she wrote: “we, . . . especially Guyanese women, must say “NO” we shall not be bullied nor shall we stand by quietly and watch these women, or, anyone else, being bullied. Editor, Ms. Teixeira’s selective approach to “bullyism” against women, is typical of political practitioners posturing conveniently (PPPC). These are people who excuse themselves (and their own) for acts they accuse others of.
With kind regards,
Remington Nelson
Pastor
Soesdyke Wesleyan Church

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_01_08_2020

…says Guyana will lose big, project will face ‘months’ of delay

By Lisa Hamilton

EXXONMOBIL has noted that if the Payara Development Project is not approved soon to allow for a Final Investment Decision (FID) at least by September 2020, weather conditions may delay the project further by months.

ExxonMobil’s Senior Vice-President, Neil Chapman, made these remarks at the company’s 2020 Annual Shareholders Meeting on Friday. It was raised that a delay in the resolution to the March 2020 General and Regional Elections is causing the issue as, despite the pandemic, the company has been forging ahead with its developments in Guyana.

At the meeting, the Senior Vice-President nonetheless expressed his confidence that the project will soon receive approval and assured that the political leaders of Guyana understand the importance of facilitating the work of the oil and gas sector.

“We’re continuing to work with the government on approval for the Payara development plan. Without final resolution of the election result and the signing in of a new government, there is a potential for delays to the schedule. Having said that, it’s very clear that all parties in-country understand the importance of progressing the developments quickly given the significant benefits to all stakeholders, especially the citizens of Guyana,” Chapman stated.

In June, the Guyana Chronicle reported that due to the COVID-19 pandemic and pending governmental and regulatory approval, advancements on ExxonMobil’s third and fourth development projects have stalled.

These include the Third Development, the Payara Development Project which has outstanding approval for its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Field Development Plan; and the Fourth, the Hammerhead Development Project, for which ExxonMobil has paused its provision of the required EIA.

The Payara Development Project is expected to produce a capacity of 220,000 gross barrels of oil per day (bpd) but its deferral has a potential delay in production startup of six to 12 months.

However, the Senior Vice-President remains positive that this development, along with others will not be affected in a drastic way. Furthermore, he stated that ExxonMobil is poised to commence operations at the Development Field the moment it is given the go-ahead by the government.

He stated: “Liza Two is in construction, I’m confident we’ll move on Payara as well…everything we and the partners can do to progress Payara on schedule, we are doing and we’ve done. I’ve said to our organisation many times, we need to be ready to move as soon as the government is ready and we are ready, we’re ready to FID this project but we need an approved development plan and that approved development plan needs to come from the government.”

As it stands on Guyana’s elections, the Elections Commission is expected to meet on Sunday to discuss the next steps towards making an elections declaration. This meeting of the commission comes following several court battles before and after a national recount. Altogether, the elections have dragged on for approximately five months.

Chapman said that many are well aware of the situation in Guyana and ExxonMobil is limited to the extent and understands that it must wait on the elections to be completed before progress on its projects can recommence.

“We’re waiting for the resolution, like everybody else, of the election and I think you’re very familiar with what happened down there. There was a vote, there was the recount and then there’s been a series of legal action that has taken place since that time. What we know, is that all parties in Guyana want to progress this development. Of course, we’re in regular contact with both President Granger of the APNU+AFC coalition and we’re also in discussion with the PPP/C and Irfaan Ali. What we continue to stress to the government is that, if the project does get delayed it’s a loss of value to the country and they understand that. It’s very, very clear. The Department of Energy understands that,” he said.

The Senior Vice-President noted that it is very important that the Development Plan is approved for a Final Investment Decision (FID) by a September 2020 timeline because there are weather conditions whereby if a certain window is missed it could result in months of delays.

Chapman said: “I’m confident this’ll get resolved but we need that approval of the development plan and that’s what governments have to do and obviously we’ll work with them, as I said, we’re ready to go.”

Apart from matters relating to Payara, Chapman reported that Liza Phase Two remains on schedule for start-up in 2022 and, while Liza Phase One experienced low production capacity in the second quarter due to mechanical issues, full capacity with a 100 per cent gas injection in is expected in August.

Added to this, the company noted that it is still actively investing for the future in Guyana with four drilling rigs as of the end of June with one on exploration and three on appraisal and project development drilling.

Just recently, it was also announced that finds of “high quality reservoirs” were made at Yellowtail-Two further cementing confidence in the “world class quality” of the Guyana basin.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_01_08_2020

Dear Editor,
I am really saddened to witness people trampling each other over in a desperate, if not jocular, attempt to get their forked tongues on that ‘green’ foliage. The process is as simple as ABC. They are taught keys words like rigged, electoral fraud, and democracy. Every time these folks speak these keys words, they are rewarded with a chlorophyll-rich diet; the epitome of positive reinforcement as described by the American psychologist B. F. Skinner. Unfortunately, most of these ruminants are from the legal fraternity. The occasional doctor may be found in the mix, but they are mostly at the level of the ‘bush doctors’ that ‘fit and proppa’ doctors frown upon.

So while I browsed the Kaieteur News recently, I saw the photo of Guyana’s most arrogant lawyer, who rightfully occupies the lowest level of the legal profession. This lawyer was once a part of ANUG, but of recent has been seen grazing and ruminating in PPP pastures. He was in the company of an ever-so-slightly more competent legal mind, whose girth testifies to an overindulgence in highly-fertilised grass. In his case, PPP pastures have been forever his home. The former is the lawyer, Timothy Jonas, who has the special gift of identifying APNU-AFC supporters. Just one sniff of the corner that the suspect passed and he will, with glorious certainty, establish if they are of APNU+AFC genre. One journalist doubted him, and he did not take questioning of his talents lightly. The latter is the lawyer, Sanjeev Datadin, an overinflated young man who lists the inhalation of noxious gases as being among his hobbies and frequently flouts same on the corridors of the courts in total contempt of their No Smoking policy. But the painful reality is that he is a walking time bomb for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). He is a heavy smoker, has bad lungs, and is severely obese. He may wish to consider my pro bono advice since Coronavirus is roaming our streets.

As alluded to earlier, I saw the article titled, “Worst harm that can happen to a country is electoral fraud”. The contributors, as mentioned earlier, were Datadin and Jonas, whose limited intellectual legal minds summated would be less than one-tenth that of LFS Burnham. They were proposed and paraphrased extracts of Sir Paul Collier’s book, and were invited to analyse same with a view to having an intellectual commentary. The paraphrased snippet reads, “The Plundered Planet, economist Sir Paul Collier tells us that the corruption of an electoral process leads to worse economic policies. Interestingly, the Professor of Economics and Public Policy says that this is far more likely to happen in a society with an abundance of natural assets.” Just perusing this Kaieteur News article, the first thing that struck me was the two lawyers’ lack of understanding of two basic concepts of law, namely, allegation and culpability in a civil case.

I shall remind them, out of concern that they may repeat it in the future, to their detriment. The Oxford dictionary defines allegation as, “a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.” Culpability, on the other hand, is “responsibility for a fault or wrong; blame.” In civil cases, the legal burden is lower than that in criminal cases. Essentially, they are based on probability. Another important concept is prima facie, which is essentially, “based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.” I will now proceed to analyse the professional contributions of these two lawyers. The first legal ‘mindless’ to offer his take was Timothy Jonas. Without hesitation, he simply heard illegal elections and immediately rushed to LFS Burnham to state that he was involved in electoral fraud from 1970 to 1985, and Guyana having to live through the consequences of them. I proceeded to forensically peruse the article in a desperate attempt to find evidence to support his apparent statement of fact. There was none. No court of law has ever ruled that any of the elections from 1970-1985 was fraudulent. Jonas has not provided any evidence of electoral fraud, from 1970-1985. The fact is, there is zero evidence. LFS Burnham may have been involved in electoral fraud, but the burden of proof was not on him; it was on those who made the allegations. The fact is that 1970 was long before many of us were born. The fact is that PPP held power illegally from 1997-2002. The fact is that that election was illegal. That was established in a Court of Law by Justice Claudette Singh. So why did Timothy skip over that and rushed to allegations from 1970? The answer is obvious: He is a ruminating cow that was fed good-quality grass by the PPP. Therefore, as a consequence of such an asinine utterance, Timothy has been relegated to the back of the class, where he must place his finger on his lips and try to come up with good reason to convince me why he should not be made to repay his parents his law-school fees. By the way, what you have described about LFS Burnham are allegations. For the record, similar allegations were made against the PPP from 1995-2015.

Sanjeev Datadin was the next legal ‘mindless’ to take the podium. This was Datadin’s input: “Basically, you get surrounded by ‘Yes men’; you don’t get capable and educated people coming there, because you have no incentive to pursue that. Echo-chambers are dangerous because, essentially, an entire nation will become subjected to the limitations of the most powerful in the echo-chamber, which would usually be the leader.” Sanjeev, I trust that you have had a few reads of your comments. Please try to convince me that you have not made a prima facie case in describing Bharrat Jagdeo and the entire PPP cabal in this comment?

In conclusion, the article was introduced with a paraphrase from Sir Paul Collier. The paraphrase snippet read, “The Plundered Planet economist, Sir Paul Collier tells us that the corruption of an electoral process leads to worse economic policies. Interestingly, the Professor of Economics and Public Policy says that this is far more likely to happen in a society with an abundance of natural assets.” Timothy and Sanjeev had to explore this snippet, and commented on it as it pertains to Guyana. The two simpletons, in my opinion, had the ideal opportunity to demonstrate their intellectual prowess. Sadly, their cerebrally- tetraplegic and superficial thinking was highlighted in the simplistic view they took to such a complex matter. I would have thought that they would have initiated their argumentation by first examining context and argue the case akin to an academic, positing for and against the conclusion proposed by Sir Collier. Having made that argument, I would have thought that in exploring the body of the statement, they would have tried to determine its applicability to Guyana’s unique politics and economics, where many do vote on race and not on issues.

In my humble opinion, Sir Collier’s argument was based on a society that votes on issues, where the best party should ultimately wins, but they are denied on account of electoral fraud. Guyana’s politics is unique, where the best party may be denied a vote, simply because of race. I would have expected them to think out of the box and not in the cup, by providing limitations of such a position by highlighting international examples. It is well established that in some societies where there is an absence of democracy, economic issues are not their greatest tragedies. For example, Iraq under Saddam Hussein had bucket-loads of oil. There was no democracy, but economic development was not Iraq’s biggest problem; their biggest problem was the daily extra-judicial killings. Also China has no democracy, but economically, they are doing well. The populace’s greatest problem is freedom of expression. Russia is a similar story. The fact is that economics is not a true science; it is a science based on theories and not established scientific facts that can be tested in a lab. As a result, when making pronouncements on economic concepts, it is important to understand the context and the limitations. Unfortunately, these two clueless lawyers just saw “electoral fraud and economics”, and they rushed in like fools to try to relate it to Guyana without an understanding of the concept. Their only concern was their reward of a bale of good- quality grass from the PPP.

Finally, democracy does not start and end with voting. Democracy is a living process that requires nourishing after the elections. Under the PPP, there was a ‘Phantom Squad’ that murdered hundreds. There were sworn testimonies in a Court of law in support of this. There was discrimination and victimisation under the PPP, so much so that they refused to provide the data to the UNDP team which was investigating such allegations. There was massive corruption, based on Transparency International’s assessment. All these are necessary nourishment for a true democracy. I say this to educate those who call themselves ‘Guardians of Democracy’, and Roy Beepat, who has suddenly developed an epiphany to speak up for democracy, like if it dies at the end of the electoral process. Such characters are the reason why Guyana cannot make progress as a country, since they struggle to see beyond race and politics. A hundred years from now, if they are alive, they will forever view Burnham’s 1970 acts as the cause of Guyana problems. For Roy Beepat of Giftland Mall, who spends his entire day speaking of dictatorship, I would challenge him to step out of that PPP bubble and do some reading on elective dictatorship, and tell me why he does not think that is applicable from 1992-2011? I seriously cannot spend my day educating men who are old enough to be my father, yet speak at a level of that of a toddler.

Regards,
Dr. Mark Devonish

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_01_04_2020