SENIOR Counsel Neil Boston said Sunday that come Tuesday, he will defend the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM)’s position that the declaration of the votes for Region Four in the General and Regional Elections is valid.

Though disappointed in the High Court’s decision that it has jurisdiction to hear an application challenging the procedure through which the Returning Officer for Region Four Clairmont Mingo arrived at the total number of votes for the District, he will file his Affidavit in Defence on Tuesday, March 10 at 10:30hrs.

On Sunday, Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire ruled that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the case brought against Mingo; Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield; and GECOM by Reeaz Holladar, a private citizen, on behalf of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).

The Chief Justice said there is sufficient evidence to prove that there was non-compliance with Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act.

Section 84 (1) of said Act states: “As soon as practicable, after the receipt of all the ballot boxes and the envelopes and packets delivered to him in pursuance of Section 83 (10), the Returning Officer shall, in the presence of such of the persons entitled under Section 86 (1) to be present as attend, ascertain the total votes cast in favour of the list in accordance with the Statements of Poll, and thereupon publicly declare the votes recorded for each list of Candidates.”

Holladar, through his lawyers, has asked the Court to block the declaration of the results for the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections until and unless the process of verifying the Statements of Poll for Region 4 (Demerara-Mahaica) is completed.

Meanwhile, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde said that though disappointed, he respects the decision of the High Court. “Obviously, we will have to comply with the Order, and at the same time we will have to take the opportunity to review what are the options available to us,” he said. “But we remain resolute in our position that the declaration of the returning Officer is a valid declaration made, and we will return to court,” Forde told journalists shortly after exiting the courtroom on Sunday.

Justifying his position, Senior Counsel Boston explained that following the declaration of the votes for District Four by the Returning Officer, the PPP/C applied for a recount but the application was denied. He said that according to the electoral laws of the country, once an application of a recount is rejected, the declaration is final. He said declarations by all 10 Returning Officers, as obtained on Thursday March 5, paved the way for the declaration of the final results for the General and Regional Elections by the Chief Elections Officer.

He said that while the High Court relied on the case Joseph Hamilton v Guyana Elections Commission, the facts and circumstances are completely different from the current matter before the Court. He explained that in Hamilton’s Case, the application was filed AFTER the declaration of the final results for the General and Regional Elections in 2001.

“We are in a completely different stage of the process, and in that Hamilton Case, we also asked the Court for a number of declarations, including stopping the swearing in of Bharrat Jagdeo… And the Chief Justice at the time, Justice Desiree Bernard, refused to grant any of the declarations,” he reasoned.

He said that the Court, in the Hamilton Case, also noted that Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act is directory and not mandatory. “It means that it does not have to happen,” the Senior Counsel emphasised. Nonetheless, he said that GECOM will return to the Court to defend its position on the declaration of the results.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-9-2020

…that no meeting scheduled for declaration of results

THE Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has given its assurance that it will not flout the laws of Guyana, and that no meeting was called to declare the results of last Monday’s general and regional elections.

In a statement on Sunday, GECOM said that as the constitutional agency responsible for the conduct of General and Regional Elections in Guyana, it is cognisant of the series of events which unfolded since the close of the polls on Elections Day, March 2, 2020. According to GECOM, while it is unfortunate how things have escalated, it is their intention to abide by all legal and procedural requirements to conclude their work.
The Commission noted that on Thursday, March 5, 2020, a mandatory injunction was granted against it and Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, as a consequence of which the finalisation of its work was impeded.

GECOM clarified that contrary to reports that the CEO had tried to bypass the court proceedings by scheduling a meeting to declare the results of the elections, what he’d in essence done was apprise the Chairman that his report on the subject at hand was ready so that she could convene a meeting with the Commissioners at her convenience.
“In relation to this matter, no meeting was scheduled. GECOM remains resolute in the fulfillment of its constitutional and statutory obligation,” GECOM stated.

The letter Lowenfield reportedly wrote GECOM Chair Justice Claudette Singh and copied to all six Commissioners reads: “Dear Madam Chair, I have received declarations from Returning Officers for General and Regional Elections 2020 from Districts 1 – 10. In accordance with Cap 1: 03 Section 99, I have prepared the final report for submission to the Commission. In this regard, a request is made for a meeting of the Commission at your earliest convenience.”

Campaign Manager of the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC), Joseph Harmon said on Friday that the numbers show clearly that the APNU+AFC are well ahead of any of the other political parties following the elections. He’d also said that the next step should be for a declaration to be made by the Commission’s CEO, followed by a meeting of the Commission to confirm the results. Thereafter, he said, the GECOM Chair was expected to send a statement to the Chancellor of the Judiciary who will act to have the President sworn in.

Harmon had said that the Commission was to have met on Friday to conclude the process, when the PPP/C served an injunction on it. Harmon said the Chair of the Commission, Retired Justice Claudette Singh decided she will follow what the court says, and agreed that the procedure for swearing-in will be put on hold and the parties will go to court on Sunday morning where the injunction will be heard. He said the APNU+AFC expects the situation to be treated with some amount of speed.

The total results declared by Returning Officers (ROs) for all 10 Administrative Regions in the Regional Elections show that the ‘Coalition’ government has won the elections by over 7,600 votes. And with Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica) being the last set of results to be declared, APNU+AFC jumped ahead on Thursday with 237,140 votes to the PPP’s 229,450.

The long-awaited results for the single outstanding Region was declared on Thursday, indicating that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) gained 77,258 votes in Region Four, while the APNU+AFC gained 136,335. This represents a 59,097 lead for the APNU+AFC in the Region, long known to be one of the Coalition’s strongholds.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-9-2020

…Chief Justice rules in jurisdiction case on Region Four votes
…injunction blocking declarations remains

CHIEF Justice, Roxane George-Wiltshire, ruled that the High Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo, followed the correct procedure before declaring the total number of votes for District Four in the General and Regional Elections.

Justice George-Wiltshire handed down the judgment on Sunday, before a packed courtroom, in the case brought against the Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo; the Chief Elections officer, Keith Lowenfield; and GECOM by a private citizen – Reeaz Holladar – on behalf of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).

In delivering her ruling, the Chief Justice said aspects of the claims made in Holladar’s application would be better canvased in an elections petition, and as such, out of an abundance of caution, she did not rely on any of that evidence in coming to a decision.
“However, having reviewed the application, submissions and authorities cited, I have concluded that this court has jurisdiction to hear this application as regards whether the first respondent, the Returning Officer, has complied with Section 84 of Chapter 01:03 [of the Representation of the People Act],” Justice George-Wiltshire ruled.

The Returning Officer, she said, exercises statutory authority, and in this case, under Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act. Section 84 (1) states: “As soon as practicable after the receipt of all the ballot boxes and the envelopes and packets delivered to him in pursuance of Section 83 (10), the Returning Officer shall, in the presence of such of the persons entitled under Section 86 (1), to be present as attend, ascertain the total votes cast in favour of the list in accordance with the Statements of Poll, and thereupon publicly declare the votes recorded for each list of candidates.”

According to the Chief Justice, there is sufficient evidence that the process may have been breached by Mingo in his capacity as the Returning Officer. “There is prima facie evidence that there has been non-compliance with the process outlined in Section 84,” the Chief Justice told the parties on both sides.

She reasoned that while Gladys Petrie and others vs the Attorney General (1968), V. Sreekumar vs The Chief Electoral Officer (2009) and Palpandi vs The Chief Electoral Officer, confirmed that elections petitions are the state of procedure for challenges to elections, it is equally clear from the decisions in the Elections Commission of India vs Ashok Kumar, Joseph Hamilton vs Guyana Elections Commission & Others and Aubrey Norton vs the Guyana Elections Commission cases, that an election official is subject to judicial review if, before the declaration of the final results, he or she fails to follow the procedures outlined in an established statute, in this case Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act. Justice George-Wiltshire said in the affidavits submitted on behalf of Holladar, there is prima facie evidence that Section 84 may not have been completely followed by the Returning Officer.

Referencing to the case – Joseph Hamilton v Guyana Elections Commission & Others – a matter adjudicated by Chief Justice Desiree Bernard, Justice George-Wiltshire said the complaint was in relation to non-compliance of Section 84 of Chapter 01:03 by the then Chief Elections Officer. She said while Chief Justice Bernard made it clear that the validity of the results of an election could only be challenged by way of an elections petition, in ordering the Chief Elections Officer to comply with Section 84, she noted that the applicant’s complaint was not about the validity of the election, but rather the need for the Chief Elections Officer to comply with his statutory duties.

“The situation is no different as disclosed in the prima facie evidence in the affidavits of the applicant…The Hamilton case clearly contemplates judicial review of actions or decisions made by elections officers made during the process of elections,” the Chief Justice emphasised. Noting that she is cognisant of the restrictions that require the approach to the court by way of an elections petition, Justice George-Wiltshire said there can clearly be cases where the court’s supervisory jurisdiction can be invoked to ensure the correct and smooth operation of an election process.

“A court cannot shirk its duty in this regard and shelter behind the contention that an elections petition should be filed when the case clearly does not so warrant. As such, having found that there is prima facie evidence to support the court having jurisdiction to hear this application, the respondents must be given a chance to be heard in response through any evidence they may wish to file,” Justice George-Wiltshire stated.

As a result of the judgment handed down, the injunction secured by Holladar from Justice Navindra Singh to block GECOM from declaring the results for the General and Regional Elections remains intact until a final determination of the court in the substantive case. It also effectively puts on hold the swearing-in of the President.

In the substantive case, Holladar is seeking a number of remedies including an order from the High Court that the declaration of the Region Four votes by the Returning Officer is in breach of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and as such, it is unconstitutional; and a declaration that GECOM cannot legally or constitutionally declare the results of the General and Regional Elections unless and until the Returning Officer or the Deputy Returning Officer for Region Four, complies with the process set out in Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act.

Senior Counsel, Neil Boston, and Attorney-at-Law, Robin Hunte – the attorneys representing the Returning Officer, the Chief Elections Officer and GECOM – will now be required to file their Affidavit in Defence by 10:30hrs on Tuesday, March 10, 2020, while Trinidad’s Senior Counsel, Douglas Mendes, and Attorney-at-Law, Anil Nandlall, the attorneys representing Holladar, have until 13:30hrs to respond if necessary. The case, however, will be heard from 15:00hrs on that very day. Before she handed down the ruling, the Chief Justice had called on all of the parties involved to be responsible in their actions, noting that while the ruling may not be pleasing the eyes of all, the court’s decision must be respected.

The judgment was delivered in the presence of a number of international observers including those from the Commonwealth, Carter Center, Organisation of American States and European Union Electoral Observation Missions.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-9-2020

Dear editor,
I DO wonder if I can have the attention of your readership. Sorry that should be full, undivided attention. You see, I have been grappling with this very exhaustingly perplexing situation which demanded a tad more cerebral grey matter to resolve. To optimally communicate my conundrum, I endeavoured on a period of meditative reflection which brought me to irreversible conclusion of the tried and tested, analogy. It is this path that I will now venture to provide clarity to this troubling predicament of mine.

The year is 2075, Bharrat Jagdeo at the ripe old age of 110yrs, still occupies the apparently permanent position of opposition leader. He invited me, as a retired doctor, over to his office, strange as it may sound, to discuss matters of health. Without hesitation, I accepted the unquestionably accepted invitation. On the day of the meeting I was smartly dressed in a navy blue suit which was complemented by black shoes. I was politely greeted by Bharrat Jagdeo’s secretary Irfaan Ali, who graciously ushered me into the spacious office.

Discussion progressed very well, but then Bharrat Jagdeo requested an urgent intermission to address matters of the alimentary canal. Just as he returned, I had just picked up his Rolex watch that was on his marble table. Without any questioning, I was arrested and placed in prison. On my much anticipated court day, I chose not to employ the service of the esteemed lawyer, Mr. Nigel Hughes, since in my estimation it was not a matter of legal mathematics. On arrival in court I thought the Lady Judge was very

amiable, polite and professional. I was worried for her health, moreso hyperthermia, as a consequence of wearing a thick woollen coat in a very tropical country. The Lady Judge eloquently read my charge, simple larceny. I politely requested of the esteemed judge to make a point, I consider pressing and relevant, to which she so kindly acceded.

I first politely reminded the Lady judge the legal definition of larceny. I highlighted that larceny is a crime against possession. This in itself is self-explanatory. Furthermore, I stated that it has two elements which must be met before I can be found guilty. The first step is the actual taking of the property, even if momentarily (actus reus) and secondly, the culpable intent to deprive another of his/her property (mens rea). In simple terms, I must have picked up the watch with the intent of depriving Bharrat Jagdeo of it. I further argued that yes, I did have the watch momentarily in my hand but it was never my intent to deny Bharrat Jagdeo of said watch. At this point the Lady Judge queried why else would I have the watch in my hand? With a fixed gaze on the complainant Bharrat Jagdeo, I responded that I had an urgent appointment, I forgot my watch at home and I had merely picked up his watch to check the time.

Of course I was set free, but I trust you see where Jagdeo erred. First, he assumed that me picking up his watch meant I was stealing it. Secondly, he rushed to a premature conclusion and never gave it time to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt that I was in the process of stealing his watch. My point is, applying my non-legal mind, someone cannot be guilty of a criminal matter unless the processes of the act in question were completed. To interrupt the processes, before they were completed because you felt it

would have been perpetrated is to place yourself in a very difficult position of trying to establish intent without any “evidence” in action to support it.

Guyana recently had general and regional elections for which processes were going swimmingly well until Region Four. At some point in the Region Four tabulation, Bharrat Jagdeo brought a Statement of Poll (SoP) which indicated that the PPP gained 10,000 more votes than in 2015. It also indicated that the PPP won Sophia. If they won Sophia then I must be the white Michael Jackson. Anyway, the SoP that was in the possession of Bharrat Jagdeo was questioned, since Region Four is an APNU+AFC stronghold and what he was suggesting is tantamount to the APNU+AFC stating that they won Babu Jaan.

The SoP was ultimately rejected and the processes were continued to the stage of verification. The PPP was not happy with what they saw, invaded GECOM and verbally threatened the staff before they forcefully kicked down Chairperson Justice Singh’s office door. The returning officer proceeded to publicly announce the Region Four tally which further angere the PPP. The final process was never completed because of the criminal actions of the PPP. They then took the matter to court, even before the processes were completed with a declaration. Their argument is electoral fraud.

Let’s examine this closer. The PPP clearly is not happy with the results because of the number of votes that was tabulated for them. As a result, they argued that it is electoral fraud. Let’s assume that they are right that they actually got more votes than was allocated to them. So now we have to determine if the intention of that reduced-vote

allocation was to defraud them of an election win. Can we really jump to that conclusion when the process has not been completed? What if that reduced-vote allocation was a simple typographical error. Would you take someone to court for a typographical error? That would be a waste of the court’s time. In my non-legal opinion, unless the results are declared then it is impossible to established intent. I do know the PPP’s sins of 1997 are haunting them.

As a kid I would hear grown folks saying that thief man don’t like to see his fellow thief with bag. Clearly, rightfully or wrongfully, they would assume that the thief with the bag has stolen. PPP, I know you have not forgotten what you did to us in 1997. Not because we are in a similar position means we will revisit it on you. When the results are declared, you must accept it gracefully. Destroying the country would not benefit any of us.

Regards
Dr. Mark Devonish

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-9-2020

…say religious leaders as they call for peace and unity

FOLLOWING the recent events of violence and hate spewed across the country, several religious leaders are calling for their fellow Guyanese to keep the peace and unity during this critical period, as the country awaits the March 2 elections results.

On Friday, several riots broke out across the country as citizens grew frustrated and impatient given the delay in the declaration of the results. The outcome of the said riots has left several young children bruised and traumatised, as well as several officers of the Guyana Police Force injured and some hospitalised. The unfortunate events have also left a family mourning the death of their 18-year-old loved one.

Pandit Dhanesh Prashad, in an invited comment, told the Guyana Chronicle that the recent outburst of violence was uncalled for, stating that persons could’ve have went about the protest in a more decent and lawful manner. Pandit Prashad added that the aggression and violence seen on Friday was unbelievable.

“I’m very concerned at the moment, however, tension is rising in the country and I don’t feel people should make things escalate as it would have been up in Berbice and up in Lusignan. I feel like those situations could have been handled differently. The protest in particular, it could’ve been handle in a different way, a more subtle way, not in the very aggressive manner that they did it,” Prashad stated.

Adding that the protest was a waste of time and energy seeing that the very same politicians the protestors were appealing to, took no heed to their cries, Prashad stated civilians should just leave the politics to the politicians, “the protest was a waste of time … let these minsters, let these MPs [members of parliament], let them trash it out, eventually they will get an answer for them.”

Appealing to the general public, Prashad noted that the level of violence which was seen over the weekend was totally uncalled for and as such, he is asking Guyanese to promote peace and not provoke each other during this sensitive period. “We did not need to go to all that length to create such steam in Berbice and Lusignan, so I’m appealing to all the people of Guyana to not let things get out of hand because every action [will see] a reaction and if you want peace to prevail you have to act in a peaceful manner,” he stated.

The young pandit further stated that he is praying for peace to prevail since the country has plunged into a state of depression and fear. “I just want peace to be prevalent right now in the country. People are scared to come out of their homes right now, business is slow right now; businesses are closing down, people aren’t working, and its not good for our country in the whole.”

Reverend Claude Brooks of Love and Faith Ministries, who also shared his views on the country’s current state, noted that he believes that it is not the politicians who fuel the hate, but the people themselves, the politics is just the lighter that ignites flames. “We allow the politicians to divide and separate us during elections. The politicians are not the ones dividing us, they are the second chair I should say, but we are divided in our hearts because of hate. If hatred was not in our hearts no politician could make us hate,” Brooks stated.

Additionally, Reverend Brooks stated that Guyanese now have to change their mentality of identifying themselves by ethnicity and instead, just identify themselves as one people of one nation.

“Indo-Guyanese, Afro-Guyanese or Amerindian-Guyanese, we have got to see each other has just Guyanese and once we continue to label and put ethnicity as our identity and not nationality, we cannot take Guyana forward …once we keep labelling ourselves the division will continue and I want to send that message out to every inch of Guyana,” he added.

A MESSAGE TO THE POLITICAL LEADERS
Meanwhile, in an appeal to the political leaders, Reverend Brooks stated that the political leaders first have to set the example and put their differences aside to see the calm and change in the people that the country has been longing for.

“We as Guyanese, we have to walk in love and only love can heal and overcome hate. Hate cannot fuel hate and that is what is happening now. A lot of the leaders [are] fuelling hate through statements and things that are being posted…a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. The message that I’m sending out is that our leaders have to love each other, and they have to heal this nation together, this nation has been divided for two long,” he stated.

The reverend further stated that the political leaders of Guyana should take responsibility for fuelling the hate and division that has always been prevalent between Guyanese people, however he added that they have the platform to put some sort of stop to it and they should use their platform wisely to send a message loud and clear.
In an appeal to the nation, reverend Brooks urged all Guyanese to promote love and unity as the elections season continues its course, “So I’m asking all Guyanese to join me in sending the message of love and not hate, and I appeal to every Guyanese to stop fuelling hate and let us pray for the reconciliation of this nation.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-9-2020

Dear Editor
IT comes as no surprise, the speed at which the controversy surrounding declaration of the Region Four results has been used to cast the PNCR as the rogue. The APNU+AFC government (of which the PNCR forms part) has never quite developed the fleetness of feet when it comes to defending itself against political attacks and criticisms. The challenged credibility of GECOM’s Region Four declaration of results, and therefore the legitimacy of APNU+AFC as the winner, however, is the coalition’s biggest political test, one which it cannot afford to fail.

Its foremost priority is not to allow any shortcomings at GECOM to stain or delegitimise its victory. The coalition can no longer sit back and allow “GECOM to do its job.” It must instead incessantly insist that GECOM get its act together in the counting of the votes. It must voice demands that GECOM must take specific actions, such as recounts, to ensure all doubts are removed in the minds of the public, the observer and diplomatic missions, and the world at large as to the true results of the 2020 elections.

Lastly, there may be several ways to rig an election. But tampering with or bypassing the Statements of Poll, as suggested by ANUG in its letter to SN yesterday, is the most foolish and therefore the least likely to happen. I remain confident that the country can sort all this out.

Regards
Sherwood Lowe

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-9-2020

…calls for security of all elections materials

THE Alliance For change (AFC) has called on the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to release its data from last week’s elections in the interest of transparency.

GECOM’s results are at variance with figures released by the Opposition, which has been alleging fraud, owing to the fact that the data showed that they lost the elections. The total results declared by Returning Officers (ROs) for all 10 Administrative Regions in the Regional Elections show that the ‘Coalition’ government has won the elections by over 7,600 votes. With Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica) being the last set of results to be declared, APNU+AFC jumped ahead on Thursday with 237,140 votes to the PPP’s 229,450.

The long-awaited results for the single outstanding Region was declared on Thursday, indicating that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) gained 77,258 votes in Region Four, while the A Partnership For National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) gained 136,335. This represents a 59,097 lead in the Region, which is known to be an APNU+AFC stronghold.

Meanwhile, in a statement on Sunday, the AFC noted the concerns expressed by various political parties, groups, observers and members of the public regarding the results of the recently-concluded elections.

The AFC says it recognises GECOM as the only constitutionally established body authorised to declare the results of the 2020 elections. “Our party is confident that the data which form the basis of the declarations made for the various regions by GECOM has already been tabulated, and is available,” the AFC said, adding: “In the interest of transparency, and for the sake of maintaining public confidence in the electoral process at this critical time, we therefore urge GECOM to release this data to the public as early as possible.

Further, the party calls on GECOM to ensure the security of all elections material in order for these to be available for scrutiny in the event of legal challenges arising over the outcome of these elections. In the meantime, we ask all Guyanese to respect the rule of law and remain calm during the period ahead.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_3-9-2020

Dear Editor
DARKNESS, the term being used by many to describe what possibly awaits Guyana on the other side of these elections. I look on in sheer horror and disbelief at a possible return of the PPP/C to office, as GECOM continues its work in the face of domestic and international hostility. It is beyond evident, that this election has been compromised and the proof is clearly in the pudding.

Those so-called political and social “activists” who have relentlessly and shamefully assassinated the character of the GECOM Chairman, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, with the intention to intimidate her so that she would cave to their demands, are nothing more than heralds of darkness. Day after day, week after week, we see unchecked verbal salvos by members of the opposition, their supporters and these “activists” being directed at Justice Singh, Ministers of Government and our President. This repulsive rhetoric makes me question the intellect of these individuals, but then again I should not be surprised given that they all have agendas.

What is most alarming to me is that these very “activists” and the masses that cling to their every word seem to have selective amnesia. Under the current opposition’s rule, they were but mere Dachshunds; they were physically and verbally assaulted and ridiculed but, today, they parade as democratic Dobermans. They forget that under this opposition, for the better part of a decade, genocide was committed. Many sons of the soil returned to the soil prematurely and their families have yet to receive any justice.

These “activists” would not have dared to use such language to condemn government officials about those atrocities during that era, for fear of retaliation. However, fast forward almost a decade later, they have now formed an unholy alliance with the same genocidal regime under the guise of fighting for democracy. Editor, let us call it what it is, hypocrisy.
The intervening foreign bodies were silent during that era of genocide, but now they all have an opinion which they think is paramount. No, it is not. Their opinions reflect their selfish interests. We are a sovereign nation and we will not be dictated to by Yanks, Poms, Canuks or Wogs. These foreign bodies are fortunate that our President is most gracious and patient; otherwise, they would be given the Michael Jackson treatment and told to “beat it”.
It is clear that these “activists” and foreign bodies have conveniently forgotten the discretions of the genocidal regime that they now vehemently support and seek to return to power, but one day we will all stand before the ultimate judge and they will all have to answer for their misdeeds. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth and when they ask for mercy, just as the sons of the soil did, they will be met with a resounding NO.

Shadow and darkness, words used by the Honourable Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo and Sir Shridath Ramphal respectively, to illustrate the imposing, latent dread that hovers over our land. At a time when our country’s very soul is at stake, we can ill afford a relapse and descent into darkness. We must let our voices be heard and stand for what is right.

Yours respectfully,
Ryan Carryl

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_09_2020

Dear Editor:
GUYANA, like the United States (U.S) and every other country around the world, is not without electoral challenges.  Whereas the U.S. reserves the right to resolve its electoral disputes, it seems as though Guyana does not deserve the same level of right to exercise judicial and other reviews over its systems. There has been intensive lobbying of U.S congressmen and women to speak about our election, even as it is in process and under the agreed scrutinising eyes of CARICOM. The action is disrespectful to the Caribbean community, which is Guyana’s primary regional partnership, grouping, and “most significant interlocutor.”

It has not escaped attention that the recent representatives speaking to this issue are not without taint to their characters. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has a sordid track record on credible elections when she headed the Democratic National Convention. She was forced to resign in disgrace on the eve of the party’s 2016 convention for her involvement in rigging the democratic process to favour the candidate that she supported as against the other.

Who is she to talk about credible elections? The point is we are on the right side and she is allowing herself to be used to deny us due process and the use of our laws in the determination of credible election. Guyanese can now relate to how Bernie Sanders must have felt though his was not a national election but a primary. Wasserman Schultz alleged electoral corruption was condemned by Democrats and Republicans alike. We have a national election where the stakes are higher, where we have visible and countless illegality in the process and Schultz is used to tell Guyana that we must accept.

What they are signaling to us is that white is right and they determine the fate of people of colour even in places where they exercise no legal control and jurisdiction. Shame on the Opposition.  Shame on those Guyanese who encourage this situation where those who we vote for cannot make decision for this country but bring foreigners to tell us what to do.
These solicited, perhaps hired commentators, clearly do not to want to regard our Constitution and Election laws in determining credible resolution as promised in the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM)’s gazetted Order of 4th May, 2020.  Determining that credibility as per Order relies on numbers and observation of the voting process on Election Day. The Order is a legal document and non-compliance constitutes a violation of the law. Some, local and international, seem bent on flouting this. This is disturbing and unacceptable.

It is also not lost on me– equally as the U.S representatives were they truly paying attention to Guyana– that for less than what is being revealed from our recount exercise, no U.S electoral board would have certified/declared such as a result. As recent as the 2018 election, the North Carolina Election Board voted not to certify/declare a congressional election for the 9th District because of “claims of irregularities and fraudulent activities.”

According to the Board, it wanted “to assure that the election is determined without taint of fraud or corruption and without irregularities that may have changed the result” and proceeded to conduct an investigation into the charges.  The National Public Radio reported the investigation was propelled by just “six sworn statements from voters in Bladen County alleging that people came to their doors and urged them to hand over their absentee ballots,”  which is a violation of that state’s electoral laws (1st December 2018- Amid Fraud Allegations, North Carolina Election Board Won’t Certify House Race).

Guyana, like the U.S and every other country around the world, is not without electoral challenges.  Whereas, the U.S. reserves the right to resolve its electoral disputes, it seems as though Guyana does not deserve the same level of right to exercise judicial and other reviews over its systems.

Note is also taken that the Organization of American States (OAS), U.S, Britain and European Union have spoken out on the election or submitted final report in as much as the process is not completed. This is submitted at a time that questions the credibility of the process and allegations still being addressed. They have done this country a disservice with injudicious interfering with our processes, setting out to undermine our laws.

They came to observe but set out to operate as though they are presiding over the process.  Guyanese should not be bullied by other nation’s public servants. They can’t go to their countries and determine how elections must be run much less show open contempt for the laws and processes governing same. The dictation they want to give to us in their own country they cannot do it; the audacity of them.

Guyanese need to take note that this process of recolonisation encouraged by persons who posture that they have our interest at heart must be equally condemned. For the persons being lobbied to dictate has no interest in our growth but how much chaos they can create between races and groups as they siphon off our bauxite, gold, diamond, oil, gas and other resources.

Already, one of heads of mission about to retire with plans to take up a position with a particular oil company even as he fraternises with the young girls in Guyana.  For those who owe the Treasury hundreds of millions of dollars, we know why they lie and are desperate to have regime change by any means necessary.  They don’t want to pay taxes consistent with the laws but expect the small to comply and shoulder the responsibility for them.

At the end of the day, regardless of which party one supports, regardless of who wins, lose or draw, the integrity of our electoral process must be paramount and safeguarded. It is that integrity, that credibility, that feeling of fair play and the will of the people in a fair process that must guide us.  This is a victory that GECOM and all Guyanese must not lose.

Regards
Lincoln Lewis

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_09_2020

Dear Editor,

ON Friday, 5th June tht national recount process discovered that in 29 ballot boxes -for the lower East Coast Demerara, in strongholds of the PPP/C, that none of the mandatory documents as required by the electoral laws of the country were present in the ballot boxes. 

It is significant that this occurred in a large area, involving many boxes accounting for about 6000 votes. This is no small matter in  2020, terms of the validation of those votes and the credibility of the 2020 elections. When taken in the context of the other numerous discrepancies, anomalies and irregularities that were uncovered during the recount process, all point to PPP/C rigging, and fraudulent elections.

My concern in this letter is to “interrogate” the PPP/C’s position for the East Coast fiasco, based on DRO Paul Jaisingh’s narrative that Mingo instructed that at the end of the count on election night, documents were to be placed in a bag instead of the ballot boxes. This narrative by Jaisingh and the PPP/C is an insult to Guyanese intelligence given the known electoral capacity of the opposition PPP/C. We are asked to believe that such instruction. coming from a GECOM official, senior or junior, would not have been immediately reported to Freedom House.

And they sat with that information for 3 months saying nothing. Bear in mind that this is a party that boasts about possessing the most efficient election machinery m the English-speaking Ca­ribbean. And lo1owing full well of the potential damage such instructions would have on their electoral fortunes, they did nothing” I disagree even without direct know!- edge on whether or not those instructions were given. My position that tl1e PPPC is ly­ing is based on five decades of involvement in politics in Guyana and that party’s political conduct informs my judgment that the PPP/C and Paul Jaisingh are engaged in manufactured propaganda to cover that party’s fraud on the East Coast. We all know if Mingo or another GECOM official had given those in­structions as claimed, that the PPP/C would not have waited to act. They would have done everything in their power to expose this alleged “plot” to rob them of votes. What is in contention in this controversy is not whether the PPP/C would have got the majority of those lower East Coast votes – but how many were valid votes cast by legitimate voters. 

I and most Guyanese are not convinced by the narrative of the PPP/C and Mr Paul Jaisingh on this issue, based on that party know track record on election mat­ters. The PPP/C would have turned GECOM into an inferno. 

The undeniable truth is that the PPP/C was once again caught in electoral rigging as was demonstrated on hundreds of occasions in the recount process.

Regards

Tacoma Ogunseye

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_09_2020