Dear Editor
ON Saturday Guyana’s Chief Elections Officer Mr. Keith Lowenfield submitted the elections results to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). The lawful process, as promulgated in Section (96) the Laws of Guyana Chapter 1:03 – The Representation of the People Act, must ensue with dispatch to bring this elections impasse to an end.

The Caribbean-Guyana Institute for Democracy (C-GID) has noted with much concern and utter dismay, the bellicose rhetoric by politicians and bureaucrats from the United States, Britain, Canada and the European Union, as well as the Organization of American States (OAS), on Guyana’s elections dispute. Instead of helping to foster a resolution, these parties have adopted an overtly partisan posture in support of the opposition People’s Progressive Party.

These foreign state and non-state actors have been issuing instructions to Guyanese government officials and members of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), which are reminiscent of slave master commands to slaves on plantations during slavery. Slavery was abolished hundreds of years ago. Guyana is not a plantation. It is a sovereign nation. Guyanese should therefore reject these paternalistic lectures from Western states whose streets are currently engulfed with violent protests because of undemocratic practices and injustice against citizens of colour.

Everyone is aware that the opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP) has spent billions of Guyana dollars lobbying foreign governments and international organisations to force GECOM and the chief elections officer (CEO) to count fraudulently cast ballots, obtained through voter impersonation, to secure a victory for the PPP. The OAS has even demonstrated the absurdity of jointly calling for removal of the nation’s CEO. This is an invasion of Guyana’s sovereignty. Clearly, the OAS is acting as a mouthpiece for the PPP at the urging of the high-priced Washington lobbyist. Such a move could have serious consequences; including unrest, which PPP members have been inciting from day one.

The desires of the international community and the Chairperson of GECOM cannot supplant the constitution and extant electoral laws. Article 162(1)(b) of the constitution compels GECOM to take any action that appears necessary to ensure impartiality and fairness of elections, and compliance with the constitution and all other electoral laws. It is pursuant to this provision and Section 22 of the Election Law Amendment Act, that the Chairperson of GECOM enacted the recount process to address irregularities and alleged fraud in the Region Four elections results. Now GECOM Chaiperson Justice Claudette Singh, is refusing to fix additional irregularities, thousands of fraudulent ballots and flagrant voter impersonation and fraud discovered during the said recount. Consequently, Justice Singh has instructed the CEO to knowingly declare fraudulent results that do not reflect the will of the people, which the CEO has refused to do. Both Article 177 (2) of the Guyana constitution and Section (96) of the Laws of Guyana – Representation of the People Act, mandates that the chairperson shall use only the CEO’s report to declare the elections results.

This impasse exists precisely because of the intransigence and indecisiveness of the chairperson of GECOM. It should be obvious to her by now that regardless of her obdurate refusal to address the PPP’s fraudulent ballots, the country will not accept her desire to count fraudulent ballots to appease the PPP and their international partners. Article 162 of the constitution grants GECOM broad, discretionary powers to ensure the fairness of elections. Justice Singh must stop deceiving the nation and reject fraudulent ballots as provided for in Article 162. Anything less will produce fraudulent results and prolong the impasse. The CEO has submitted his report. It is time to bring the elections to a close. The chairperson must declare the results submitted by the CEO, in accordance with Section (96) of the Representation of the People Act.

Regards
Richard Millington, Esq.
Director of Communications
Caribbean-Guyana Institute for Democracy (C-GID)

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_13_2020

Say professor sir Hilary Beckles

REGIONAL Scholar, Professor Sir Hilar Beckles, urged Guyana not to delay the declaration and imple­mentation of the March 2 election’s result any further, and contended that the country :should work towards sustaining the multiracial society. 

“The people have spoken. And so has the highest court. From the 2019,2020 electoral campaign and franchise exercise, their will is now known,” the Professor of Economic History said in a recent statement. 

The declaration of results from Guyana’s March 2 Regional and General elections has been stalled for weeks in the wake of several discrepancies which have been w1earthed. Beckles, however, reminded that the electoral process was monitored and reviewed by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), alluding to his confidence· in the regional body. 

“The findings of the out­come should be declared and implemented,” he advised, stating, “There is no other option that will be acceptable to the region and wider world. The future of the nation is assured with the compliance of (the) State to the popular will.” 

He reasoned that the prolonging of the declara­tion and implementation of the elections’ results will result in a greater tarnish on the varnish of the history of a great nation. The professor also reasoned that a fear of the future that may result is not an acceptable explanation for the current situation of “franchise frustration”. 

The Professor also high­lighted that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), the regional court and Guyana’s final court of Appeal, is counting on the integrity of the country’s polity to protect the democracy of Guyana. 

On Thursday, the CCJ­in ruling that it has the ju­risdiction to an application filed by People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C)­set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal on the interpretation of the Constitution; and invalidated the Elections Report submitted by the Chief Elections Offi­cer, Keith Lowenfield. That elections report, submitted by Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield on June 23, excluded approximately 115, 000 votes on the basis that they were compromised due to a string of irregularities and cases of voter impersonation. 

“I join with the current and past Heads of CAR­I COM, the Honourable Ralph Gonsalves and the Honourable Mia Mottley respectively, and with the former Prime Minister of Barbados, the 1-lonourable Owen Arthur, in calling for the official embrace of the evidentiary truth of the election,” Professor Sir Beckles said. 

‘STAY THE COURSE’ 

Sir Beckles’ statement, as he illustrated, were drawn from his personal ties to Guyana. According to him, his Uncle, Hilary Alfonso McDonald Beckles- whom he was named after- supported Guyana’s dream for democratic de­velopment, and that the equality of ethnicities was his personal quest.

“I know something of its history and culture, including the good and the bad times evident in its turbulent journey to and beyond nationhood,” Sir Beckles said, “It has been a torn and tortured terrain with divisive seeds sown in the colonial waters that nurture the rich land.”

Cognisant of the racial challenges that exist in Guyana, often exacerbat­ed at ·election’s time’, the Professor underscored that the determined evidence of the debilitating deploy­ment of ethnic identity as expressions of indigenous nationalism can be seen in far too many places. Even so, he posited that there is a “compelling story” to be told, in the history from seawalls to sugar estates. This story, he said, is the, ” … commitment to the paramount principle that the will of the people should not be toppled, but respected.” 

“The children of indigenous survivors, the chattel enslaved, the deceived indentured, and others in between, must now converge at the rendezvous of victory. The minority party should stay the course and continue to contribute to the sustainability and maturity of the integrated, multiracial nation,” be said.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_13_2020

This is the electoral season of numbers, spreadsheets and tables; they are everywhere. This numerical deluge is being driven by the high political passions due to the just concluded general and regional elections. In this context, numbers are being thrown around in the service of political interests. In the course of this occurrence, invariably, confusion and uncertainty reign supreme. Citizens are having a difficult time trying to establish the truth. This is the precise reason why the framers of the Constitution ensured that the ultimate repository for electoral numerical truth resided in the court of law.

THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION
Data, statistics and numbers are often cited or quoted to strengthen an argument or present conclusions that are consistent with a particular objective in the court of public opinion. Invariably, half of the story is often told because those who engage in such, would carefully select specific numbers and ignore those that are inconsistent with their narrative. In such a circumstance, you are not under oath or subject to cross-examination by judicial officers and processes. Besides, those who possess the economic resources can control the narrative through vast systems of communication and ensure what is far from the truth is accepted as reality. When this is placed in the electoral circumstance, it teems with dangerous implications for the average country and it is for this safe reason, the test of verification and credibility must remain with the judicial branch.
Further, the art of cherry-picking is a stark reminder of why we cannot leave the verification of electoral numbers to the whims and fancies of the court of public opinion. It is the main feature in public debating where numbers are plucked from thin air to buttress arguments. In this, there is a wholesale suppression of numerical facts that may disprove a particular argumentation. Proponents often present spreadsheets, tables and documented statistics to argue a case that does not face the stringent judicial critique. There is no final arbiter in the form of a judge who can demand the best standards of verification.

ELECTORAL NUMBERS IN THE POLITICAL SPHERE
Political parties, by virtue of their raison d’etre being the passionate pursuit of power, should never be left to decide the credibility of electoral numbers. Even when they have SoPs being waved about with brimming confidence and certainty, this responsibility must never be left up to political actors. Even if political actors release every bit of electoral documents and subscribe to the highest standard of transparency, the ultimate test of verification and credibility of electoral numbers must not remain with these entities. For very simple reasons, in this modern technological era, we cannot trust documents. Political parties will never subscribe to the truth that is not consistent with their aims and objectives, and verification and credibility will forever be subject to brinksmanship and gamesmanship. In a court of law, documents are subject to forensics checks, witnesses are called and rigorous investigative methods ensure there is the establishment of electoral truth. This is directly linked to fairness and justice which are key concepts that keep a society glued and insulated from disintegration. It is apparent to me and ought to be apparent to any objective and reasonable mind that this cannot be subject to the vicissitudes of the political sphere. In this realm, infinite lies are told in a cocktail of numerical concoctions due to the nature of politics. It is the least safe place for electoral numbers.

ELECTORAL NUMBERS IN THE COURT OF LAW
The legitimate court of law is that celestial place where fairness and justice beckon. Trials and all their processes and systems are a search for ultimate truth. Where there is injury, the court provides the forum where the remedy can be procured. In the court of law, electoral numbers would have to face all the requirements of evidentiary standards: admissibility, authentication,
relevance, privilege, witnesses, opinions, expert testimony, identification and rules of physical evidence. There are various standards of evidence, standards showing how strong the evidence must be to meet the legal burden of proof in a given situation, ranging from reasonable suspicion to preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt. Such supreme levels of veracity are anathema to the court of public opinion or the political sphere. It is against this backdrop, the arguments for the dogged commitment to the elections petition culture are sustained.
One might ask, what is the true will of the Guyanese as expressed on March 2, 2020? That question should be put to a court of law, and, therein, the ultimate verification and credibility of electoral numbers shall be established.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_13_2020

….to examine CEO report, possible declaration
–commissioners hope for amicable solution in spite of contrasting views

As on many previous occasions, Commissioners of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) will be heading into what could possibly be their last meeting prior to a declaration, in spite of their disparate views on what should be done.

Ultimately, what will become of the meeting lies in the hands of GECOM Chair, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, who has thus far received the report of the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, based on the declarations made in March by the Returning Officers in the 10 electoral districts.

Speaking with the Guyana Chronicle on Sunday, government-nominated Commissioner, Desmond Trotman said that what he will personally be putting forward to the Commission will depend on the agenda items the Chair will set. Nonetheless, he recalled that at the previous meeting, he and the other government-nominated Commissioners had pushed for the elections to be vitiated.

“We have argued that the recount process was corrupted, and as such there should be no declaration, based on what took place during the recount,” Commissioner Trotman said.

Guyana has come a long way since the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections, which included court battles, a national recount and more court battles. Yet still, the Commission is not hard-set or in unison on what legal means should form the basis of a declaration, or whether the elections should be vitiated.

Understandably, People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C)-nominated Commissioners want the recount data, which shows a win for their party, to be used to declare the elections. However, there is not only contention about whether the entire elections should be scrapped, but other concerns as well.

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), in handing down its recent decision, had noted that Guyana’s Constitution trumps the Recount Order No.60 in the areas where there is contradiction.

It also noted that the election of a president and members of the National Assembly can only be done “on the sole basis of votes counted, and information furnished by Returning Officers under the Representation of the People Act.”

The CEO, in presenting his elections report to the Commission, did so on the basis of declarations made by the Returning Officers in the 10 Electoral Districts, in accordance with Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act. Those declarations and the Elections Report were placed in abeyance to pave way for the national recount.

In his report, the CEO reminded the Chair that the national recount was not undertaken by Returning Officers. “The concluding opinion [Paragraph 52] of the CCJ’s judgment states that Order 60 is in tension with the Constitution of Guyana, and could not create a new election regime,” Lowenfield said in his report.

However, the use of any other data besides the contentious recount data has not found favour with PPP/C-nominated Commissioners. Sase Gunraj made it clear that Lowenfield’s report was a total “eye-pass” to the Commission.

“How much longer must a nation be held hostage by a depraved, dishonest bunch bent on thwarting the will of the electorate?” he asked, adding: “That report does not contain the correct numbers as was generated by the recount exercise.”

Furthermore, the party contends that CCJ never invalidated Order No. 60, but rather “endorsed the recount process”.

The Opposition has called for the CEO to be fired and even charged for the action and previous actions they deem illegal. However, Commissioner Trotman said that he does not view the CEO’s request for clarity prior to the submission of his report as being disrespectful.

He said that Lowenfield’s observation and questions were legitimate, and this is why government-nominated Commissioners supported his right to seek clarity, but the PPP/C did not accept it.
“We also argued [against] threats to dismiss the CEO. The CEO has, under the law, the right to come to the Commission to demand that the concerns which he has on specific issues relevant to [his report] should be addressed, and that despite the fact that they are attempting to say that he was rude when he raised those concerns, the fact of the matter is that he has a legitimate right to be given the opportunity to be heard, and have those concerns be raised,” Trotman said.

However, calls for dismissal are not the worst of the messages that have been coming to CEO, Commissioners of Chair of the Commission. There have been reports of death threats being made to the Justice Singh and the CEO while government-nominated Commissioners have noticed that they are being watched.

Trotman told of a recent encounter which has led him to advocate for greater security to be put in place for Commissioners during these tense times.

“Up to last night, there were persons outside my home photographing the house. So, the question of security of Commissioners really should be addressed. The same way like how the Chair has protection 24 hours a day, there should be some consideration for Commissioners,” he said, adding:

“It is true that we’re exiting in a highly volatile atmosphere at this particular point in time, and, as a result of that, steps should have been taken a long time ago to ensure Commissioners safety.” The Commission will meet today at an undisclosed time.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_13_2020

Dear Editor,

One of the best things that could have happen for me is for the United Nations Secretary General, Antonio Guterres to comment on the Guyana March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections. Firstly, let me state that I have the utmost respect for the United Nations and the Secretary General, as well as the Office. I have great respect for the Caribbean Community (Caricom), the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the international community.

I have always been a law abiding citizen of Guyana – I pay my taxes, I am honest, have never been corrupt neither would I ever become corrupt, I confirm to the National Pledge of Guyana, so I would say that I am a good citizen. In 2015, I voted for the APNU+AFC government as a part of the movement for change in administration. Prior to 2015, I had criticized the PPP/C government when I thought that it fell short of the expectations of the people.

After 2015, I challenged the APNU+AFC government viciously and openly throughout the past five years because I felt that what was wrong for the PPP/C, I could not accept as right from the APNU+AFC government; essentially, life operates on principles. I did not plan to vote on March 2 for neither the PPP/C nor the APNU+AFC because I felt that both leadership operated from their lower-self and the people of Guyana deserved a better quality of leadership.

After the March 2, 2020 incidents surrounding the tabulation of the Region Four votes, I would have lead a ‘campaign’, if it had become necessary, against the APNU+AFC government for them to demit office in the interest of protecting the rule of law and democracy in Guyana. However, after all of the discrepancies were unearthed from the national recount process, I realized that while the APNU-AFC was being accused of questionable acts during the tabulation process for Region Four, the PPP/C members were not in church singing in the choir or attending bible study on March 2, or prior. Both parties are guilty, in my view, of significant malpractices.

As a child growing up, my parents taught me that honestly is the best policy, therefore, I find it extremely baffling, the stance which the international community has taken to accuse one party of wrong and not the other. Just in case Mr. Secretary General, you were not provided with this information before making your statement, I would like to humbly and respectfully, state that both of our political parties,  in my view, have wronged the Guyanese people in these elections.

There is a wide view that the international community seems to be leaning towards a change in regime in Guyana, hence the seeming blindness to the wrongs committed on both sides. While I understand the arguments on the rule of law, democracy and that decisions of the Courts ought to be adhere to, a fundamental point that I think the international community is missing or do not care to pay attention to, is that the current regime, represents a constituency as well as the Opposition represents a constituency; and ethno-politics has been perhaps the main governance challenge in Guyana from as early as 1953.

Additionally, the main threat to Guyana’s security, is internal racial issues. From my vantage point, the current situation in Guyana Mr. Secretary General, at this point, is probably equivalent to Rwanda just before the civil war broke out. What in my view, is best for Guyana at this stage, is not declaration but rather a solution? A declaration would not be the solution; instead, it may be the final trigger for widespread civil unrest.

Some of us have been working behind the scenes to try to get our political leaders, to explore and consider a solution, where both of the major parties could form a government  for an interim period, with a specific mandate to conduct; constitutional reform, electoral reform (to facilitate a new electoral culture in the country) and to have consensus on an economic development policy and strategy with relevance for the 30 – 40 years.

I must also state that what I find extremely baffling, is the reluctance from the international community to assist the Guyanese people to find a solution to our almost 70 years old ethno-political problem. The United Nations, the OAS, CARICOM, and individual countries have a huge wealth of knowledge and expertise at their disposal, yet they are seemingly hesitant to help us. Democracy is certainly not perfect, as a matter of fact, I see the lack of interest in a preventative approach to the escalation our current situation, as being a fundamental flaw in democracy.

As I read the public statements from the Mandela’s ‘Elders  Group’, the former President of Liberia, and others significant regional and international personalities and organisations, I can’t help but wonder, how much do they understand and care about what is really happening in Guyana.

My humble request  to the United Nations Secretary General, as a citizen who has literally worked in the gutters fighting for a better country and has challenged governments on both sides, to my own peril at times, can you help us, to find a solution to our country’s 67 years old ethno-political problem, so that we can hand our next generation, a better Guyana than the one that was handed to us…PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Mr. SG?

Yours faithfully,
Citizen Audreyanna Thomas

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-12-2020

THIS past week has seen a variety of legal opinions. There was the ruling by the Caribbean Court of Justice. It appeared to suggest that the Chief Elections Officer cannot, on his own, and using information at his disposal, determine valid votes.

Then there was the most recent spate of communication between the Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission and the Chief Elections Officer. The Chairperson directed the Chief Elections Officer to present a report that reflects the tabulated votes from the recount. This prompted a request for direction. He contended that the order created by the elections commission was in conflict with the Representation of the People Act which talks to figures provided by returning officers.

He noted that the recount was not undertaken by returning officers. The Chairperson, however, was adamant that he use the recount tabulation. In the wake of his request, Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield found that there were calls for his dismissal. Imagine being sacked for seeking clarification. But then again, the state of affairs in the wake of the ruling by the CCJ the rule of law seems to have gone through the window. But there are clear rules and using these rules the Chief Elections Officer presented his report to Justice Claudette Singh yesterday.

Under the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) the CEO presents the winner of an Elections in Guyana. Under the Article 163 of the Constitution any Party which disputes the result must go to an Election Petition. That was not done by the PPP/C. When the count was being declared on March 13, last, immediately the PPP/C made a noise. Joining that party were the diplomats based in Guyana. They began to talk about sanctions. However, the PPP launched a set of legal battles which led to a decision from the CCJ. That decision questions Order 60 and puts the ROPA back in focus. This dictated that the CEO must stand firm on the laws, constitution and the judgement of the CCJ. He provided a report consistent with the CCJ’s decision.

That report must now reflect what the ROPA and constitution demand and the law further states that the GECOM Chairperson must accept the advice of the CEO. The Chairman is removable from office for misconduct or misbehaviour. The President has the authority under Article 225 to remove any Chairman of a Commission for misbehaviour, infirmity of body or mind or any other cause.

In the case of the Chairperson of the Elections Commission, that tribunal to investigate and report to the President will be headed by the Prime Minister under Article 161. The tribunal’s report will say yes or no to the removal of the Chairman. For all it is worth the PPP/C has been seeking to dominate the GECOM Chairperson. When those ballot boxes with tinted ballots were questioned, the initial decision was that the boxes be put aside. And they were until the PPP/C began to talk about people being disenfranchised.

Those boxes featured voter impersonation among other things. By a majority vote the commission opted to count the ballots in those boxes. This meant that fraudulent votes were being accepted into the recount. That decision came back to taint the issue. The CCJ decided that once those votes were counted they were valid. Fraudulent votes were being used to determine the outcome of the elections.

Of interest is the role played by the diplomatic community. To some the diplomats have overstepped their boundaries. Their action is reminiscent of 1992 when the United States ambassador at the time, George Fleming Jones, literally took over the elections commission and Guyana is aware of that outcome. This time around, it is as if the diplomats desperately want a change in Government.

And while all this is going on the PPP/C has been also, in social media. It posted some news that boggled the mind. In one post, it claimed that Director-General, Joseph Harmon and businessman Brian Tiwarie loaded two aircraft with sacks of money and flew to a Caribbean destination.

In this day and age with the focus on money laundering one must wonder how people with sacks of money would be allowed into any port of entry. Banking is another matter. The truth is that no aircraft associated with Mr. Tiwarie left these shores. Then there was a report that Mr. Tiwarie had taken the Chief Elections Officer to his resort in the Teperu Quarry to hide him. No authority saw the Chief Elections Officer, Mr. Keith Lowenfield, in the vicinity of any airport. Besides, the man was there for every meeting of the elections commission. There were attacks on Mr. Tiwarie’s children and family. It is one thing to target a man but when you also target his family then somebody had no moral.

It didn’t end there. There was a report that former magistrate Geeta Chandan and I were hired to terrorise the GECOM Chairperson. I cannot understand why the police were not involved. I should have been arrested. There have been other posts equally ludicrous. Every attempt is being made to have the chairperson install a PPP/C Government. They have applied pressure on her in every quarter. It began with some ad hominen attacks on the woman. They accused her of electoral irregularity and actually called her Fraudette. They have attacked every election official who had to deal with the votes. And worse of all they have threatened to imprison anyone who is opposed to the PPP/C. The Chief Elections Officer has submitted his report with a detailed explanation. The commission will meet tomorrow. The nation now awaits that meeting.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-12-2020

WHAT a difference a few days could make in a journey that has lasted over four months. On Wednesday last, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) handed down what many consider to be a defining decision. First, the CCJ was asked to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear a case which emanated from the Guyana Court of Appeal (CoA). Second, if it found it had jurisdiction, it was asked to determine whether the CoA itself has jurisdiction to hear the contested case. These matters, of course had great significance for the outcome of the ongoing election impasse in Guyana.

To the surprise of many observers, the CCJ ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case and proceeded to strike down the CoA’s ruling and invalidate all actions that flowed from it. We say surprising, because both the Guyana constitution and the CCJ Act explicitly barred the CCJ from jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Constitution gave the CoA final jurisdiction over any matter that fell under Article 177 (4), which the CoA relied on to hear the case in question. Further, Section 4 (3) of the CCJ Order prohibits the court from hearing any matter decided on by a final court in a Member State.

Yet, despite the above barriers, the CCJ found that it had jurisdiction by invoking its standing as Guyana’s court of last resort. It reasoned that this standing gave it jurisdiction to hear matters of great importance. In so doing, it used a narrow reading of both Article 177 (4) of Guyana’s Constitution and Part 4 (3) of the CCJ Act. Many legal scholars have since described the ruling as a form of judicial activism that has the effect of legislating from the bench. Some political scientists have gone even further, by labeling it a political act that could be viewed as both direct and indirect entanglement in Guyana’s partisan politics.

Having said that, the CCJ steered clear of making any coercive orders as was requested by the lawyers representing the PPP/C and the smaller parties. Those parties had asked the court to instruct the Chief Elections Officer about what should be considered a valid vote. Further, the court virtually invalidated the Recount Order (60) which the CoA had used to arrive at its conclusion that “more votes” in the Constitution means “more valid votes”. The Order had in effect changed the definition of a valid vote from the standard definition in the Representation of the People’s Act to “a credible vote”.

By invalidating the Recount Order, the CCJ has also invalidated any outcomes of the recount exercise. So, when the GECOM Chair requested a report from the CEO, based on one of the reports from the recount, she was actually asking him go against the ruling of the CCJ, which said that the Recount Order cannot usurp the Constitution or the Representation of the People’s Act. The CEO duly pointed that out in his response to her request. He also drew to her attention that the CCJ ruled that any certified votes must be those certified by the Returning Officers. In any case, it should be clear that the Chair cannot ask the CEO to produce a report, based on her advice. As Attorney-General Basil Williams pointed out, she would be acting on her own advice, which is prohibited.

One would have expected the Chair to recognise the conundrum in which the Commission was placed by the CCJ ruling and change course. But she virtually resubmitted the identical request to the CEO. And the CEO submitted a report which, from all indications, is based on the certified declarations of the ten Returning Officers which had been put in abeyance by GECOM when it embarked on the recount exercise. The report gave the APNU+AFC a one-seat majority.

In many respects, the CCJ ruling has had unintended consequences. Instead of producing the outcome that the PPP/C and presumably GECOM’s Chair were hoping for, it has walked the election way back to the pre-recount period. In hindsight, maybe, Ulita Moore and her lawyers were correct in their reasoning that the recount was unconstitutional. Although the CCJ did not explicitly say so, one can imply that from its ruling. It is now up to GECOM to proceed. The straightforward thing to do is to accept the CEO’s report and declare the winner of the election. But after all we have seen in these four months and more, that may not be that straightforward. So, Guyana awaits GECOM. Clearly, the PPP/C would be disappointed at the turn of events, but decisions have consequences. That Party may well rue some decisions it made along the way. As for GECOM, the Chair and her majority in the Commission must take responsibility for their decision not to annul the elections when that opportunity arose.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-12-2020

criticise CEO for delavs

SEVERAL of the small parties that participated in the March 2, 2020 elections on Friday urged a swift declaration of the results of the polls, even as they criticised the chief Elections Officers for holding up the process. 

On Friday, the CEO, Keith Lowen field, instead of submitting an Elections Report, sought clarity from tl1e Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, on the basis that the request for the preparation and submission of that report collides with the Constitution of Guyana and the Representation of the People Act. Justice Singh, on Thursday (July 9), had instructed the Chief Elections Officer to submit the Elections Report in accordance with Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution and Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act, Cap I :03 no later than 14:00hrs on Friday(July, 10).

According to the instructions of the OECOM Chair, the report ought to be compiled using the valid votes counted during the 33-day national recount as indicated on the Certificates of Recount. But Lowenfield said there was need for much clarification, and tl1ough he met with the Elections Commission at GECOM’s High and Cowan Streets’ Headquarters, there was no report. 

In his letter to Justice Singh, the Chief Elections Officer said having read the judgment of the Caribbean 

Court of Justice (CCJ), it was imperative for him to have a clear understanding ahead of the preparation and submission of the report, to safeguard against any action deemed to be unilateral. ll1e CEO eventually submitted his report on Saturday and the commission is to deliberate on it on Monday. 

Despite expressing frustration over the matter, The Citizenship initiative (TCI) lauded what it said was the effort of Justice (ret’d) Singh to move Guyana’s election process swiftly along to its conclusion. “We note with concern, however, that it now appears that the Chief Elections Officer is unsure of how to comply with clear directives received from the head of the Commission. This position has forced The Chair to now reissue her request a third time. TCI is of the opinion, that with previous elections experience under his belt, the CEO is more than aware of how his job should be done. In light of this background, the CEO’s action can possibly be construed as insubordinate action against Madame Chair.” 

The TCI posited: “We posit that Guyana’s constitution in article 161 A (I) gives the Elections Commission responsibility for the efficient functioning of the Secretariat, and appointment of its officers. The Commission therefore has the power to remove and to exercise disciplinary control over such staff. Section 18 of the Election Laws Act No 15 of 2000 stipulates that the CEO is subject to the direction and control of the Commission.” 

TCI proposes that should CEO Lowenfield appear to continue to be reluctant or perhaps even appear unable to efficiently complete his duties as per deadline issued, that Madame Chair exercises disciplinary control as the case may warrant. “TCI respectfully requests this action from the Commission, for efficient functioning of the Secretariat and so that its work may be completed in a timely manner. We are now operating on a limited budget during a pandemic and our people require assistance and only a legally elected government can offer assistance to them. It is time to bring the curtains down on a protracted electoral process in order for the country to move on,” the TCJ stated. 

For their part the leader of the United Republican Party (URP) Dr. Vishnu Bandhu called for the sacking of Lowenfield. Dr. Bandhu emphasised that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruling was clear and the Chair needs to act accordingly if her instruction continues to be disobeyed. 

The New Movement group said Guyanese and the International community have witnessed yet another vile attempt to derail the declaration of the winner of the General and Regional Election (ORE). “This, we will say, does not sit well with the members of The New Movement and deli nitely not with the people of Guyana who we represent. Today marks the one hundred and thirtieth ( I 30th) day since the people all across Guyana went out to exercise their democratic right. Within this one hundred and thirty ( 130) days period, much twiddling and unceremonious fondling of the law has occurred via the incumbent government’s members and even Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM’s) employee, Mr. Lowenfield.” 

The party said just this week on .June 8, 2020, the highest court of the land, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), came to a. united decision and banded down specific order tha.t related to the GRE 2020. “The specific court orders discredit and nullify the Court of Ap peal’s. (CoA) ruling and also discredit and nullify Mr. Lowenfield’s report be bad promptly submitted on June 23rd, 2020 following the CoA’s orders. Mr. Lowenfield bas acted Ultra Virts on numerous occasions and bas done so once again today, June 10th, 2020 after ht was written to with specific instruction from his employer, (;ECOM on .June 9th, 2020. His very actions bas held an entire nation at ransom and snatched tbt people’s democratic freedom. Mr. Lowtnfield bas bun noted to peddle an erroneous statement in June 2020 saying that be is not bounded by the directives of GECOM but bas stated publically in 2019 that it was GECOM who by constitutional order, instructs him.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-12-2020

OUTRAGED over the fact that the Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield reverted to the declarations made by returning officers in March, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), on Saturday objected to the Elections Report which was submitted to Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh.

The chief elections officer, ahead of his submission on Saturday, had expressed concerns that there could not have been a declaration from the national recount on the basis that the Recount Order – Order No. 60 – contradicts the constitution and the Representation of the People Act. He had pointed to the written judgment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) made on July 8, but the PPP/C said the country’s apex court in the Eslyn David case never invalidated the Recount Order or the recount process.

“Of course, the judgment contains no such pronouncement. In fact, the court thoroughly examined the Recount Order and endorsed the recount Pprocess..,” the PPP/C said in a statement on Saturday. It pointed out that the CCJ only granted three orders – one, granting special leave to Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal; that the appeal of the appellant was allowed; and that the said decision of the Court Of Appeal was made without jurisdiction, is invalid and of no effect. The court had also invalidated the second Elections Report submitted by the chief elections officer on June 23, 2020.

In his quest to determine “a final, credible count,” as mandated by the Recount Order, Lowenfield had excluded 115,000 votes from his Elections Report because they were affected by a range of irregularities and cases of voter impersonation. However, the court ruled that only the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of elections, and as such it invalidated the report. It was after the ruling of the CCJ that the Chairman of GECOM on Thursday (July 9) requested a third Elections Report from the chief elections officer. The first Elections Report was never invalidated but was placed in abeyance by the elections commission to facilitate the national recount. His third Elections Report is reportedly reflective of the first, though the GECOM Chair had insisted that the report be compiled using the valid votes tabulated during the national recount.

“Lowenfield’s conduct not only amounts to gross insubordination and an egregious dereliction of his duty, but his report constitutes intentional fraud in that he included numbers which he knows to be fraudulent and fictitious. For example, he tabulated the ten (10) Certificates of Recount and submitted in a previous report to the commission 460,352 as the total valid votes cast and in the fraudulent report now submitted to the commission, he states that the total number of valid votes is 479,118, a difference of nearly 20,000 votes , and this is only the tip of the iceberg,” the PPP/C said. But the chief elections officer from all indications did not use the data from the recount, but from the declarations made by the returning officers, which is stipulated in the Representation of the People Act and reinforced by the CCJ. Paragraph 37 of the judgment reads: “Both the allocation of seats in the National Assembly and the identification of the successful presidential candidate are determined on the sole basis of votes counted and information furnished by returning officers under the Representation of the People Act.”

Against this background, the chief elections officer, in one of his letters, had reminded the Chair of the Elections Commission that the national recount was not undertaken by returning officers. But the PPP/C said Article 162(1) (b) of the constitution empowers the elections commission to, “issue such instructions and take such actions as appear to it necessary or expedient to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with the provision of this constitution or any Act of Parliament on the part of persons exercising powers or performing duties connected with” the electoral process.

It also made a case for the dismissal of Lowenfield, noting that under Article 161 (a), it has the powers to do so. “…GECOM has a constitutional mandate and duty to dismiss Lowenfield forthwith for his fraudulent conduct, his dereliction from duty and his vile insubordination and to immediately appoint another chief elections officer to carry out its directions contained in its various letters to Lowenfield,” the party said.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-12-2020

By Svetlana Marshall

WITH the Chief Elections Officer’s Elections Report showing a win for the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC), the Coalition’s Chief Spokesman, Joseph Harmon wants the results of the General and Regional Elections be declared, and President David Granger sworn in for a second term in Office.
The Elections Report, the third of its kind within the past four months, was submitted to the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh on Saturday (July 11) by the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield. According to Harmon, there is nothing stopping the Chairman and her commission from accepting the report, and as such, they must act with alacrity. “We are calling on her to accept the report as required under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act and for her to declare David Granger as the President,” Harmon told the Guyana Chronicle.

In dismissing allegations that the CEO defied the orders of the GECOM Chair, the APNU+AFC spokesman said the Elections Report was compiled and submitted in accordance with the Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution, Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act and ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Further, he said it is a reflection of the will of the people of Guyana as expressed during the General and Regional Elections held last March, and confirm that the APNU+AFC won the elections. “It is basically a confirmation that at all material stages, that the APNU+AFC had won these elections, and all of the processes through which we had gone, coming back to this point, have actually confirmed that,” Harmon said.

The Elections Report submitted is reflective of the declarations made by the Returning Officers in the 10 Electoral Districts in March. While the High Court had invalidated the March 5, 2020 declaration made by the Region Four Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo; his second declaration made on March 13, 2020 was never invalidated by the Court.

In fact, while the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) had initiated contempt proceedings in the High Court against Mingo on March 12; it withdrew the case in June over lack of sufficient evidence.

That decision, which came three months after the matter was initiated, did not sit well with the Chief Justice (ag) Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire, who chided Attorney-at-Law Anil Nandlall for wasting the court’s time when he was fully well aware that the application, as filed, did not meet the threshold for contempt of court proceedings. As such, the declaration made on March 23 stands.

However, in March and later in April, amid the PPP/C’s consistent claim of electoral fraud, GECOM agreed to facilitate a national recount, which was conducted in May-June. But the CCJ, in its July 8 decision, said that not only should the President and the members of the National Assembly be elected based on the declarations made by the Returning Officers, it made it clear that only High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of an electoral process.
“If the integrity of a ballot, or the manner in which a vote was procured, is questioned beyond this transparent validation exercise, say because of some fundamental irregularity…then that would be a matter that must be pursued through Article 163 after the elections have been concluded,” the CCJ said. An Elections Petition could only be filed within 28 days of a declaration of the election results.

The CCJ, at the time, was ruling in a case brought by PPP/C’s Bharrat Jagdeo and Irfaan Ali against North Sophia Voter Eslyn David and others. In that case, Harmon had pointed to the widespread irregularities and cases of dead and migrant voters that had been detected during the national recount, which showed a win for the PPP/C, but the Court reminded that any challenge to the validity of the elections must come by way of an Elections Petition in accordance with Article 163 of the Constitution and the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act.

It is believed that the Chief Elections Officer submitted his latest Elections Report in accordance with the Representation of the People Act, on the basis that the national recount, conducted under Order No. 60, had corrupted the Electoral Process, and notably was not facilitated by Returning Officers as stipulated by the Representation of the People Act. Notwithstanding the challenges, Harmon said Guyanese should accept the CEO’s Elections Report. Such a move, he said will bring an end to the ongoing electoral impasse, and move the country forward.

“The Guyanese people are tired, they have waited for months; they have to deal with COVID-19 and all of these things are weighing [them] down; they are like the knee on the neck of the Guyanese people. And so we have to release them, we have to free up this country; we have to be able to let normalcy return to our country, and this is an important step in that direction, and everything has been done according to the law, and in accordance with the Constitution,” the APNU+AFC spokesperson said.
To Lowenfield and his staff, Harmon offered his deep gratitude for their demonstration of great professionalism. “We want to thank the Chief Elections Officer and his staff for a professional job,” he posited while iterating that Lowenfield’s Report is consistent with the Constitution, the Electoral Laws and the rulings of the court. It is unclear at this stage if the Justice Singh will accept the report, and proceed with a declaration, however, the opposition-nominated Elections Commissioners, are up in arms against the report.

As the country awaits the decision of GECOM, Harmon is urging Guyanese to remain calm. “We have waited a long time, we have been very patient and I would like to exhort all of Guyana to remain patient and to allow the commission to do its work, but even though I say that, I am saying to you that the commission must not sleep on its feet. The commission must act with alacrity; the chairman must do what she has to do, and let our country return to normalcy by next week,” he said. According to the Elections Report, the APNU+AFC secured 236,777 votes while the main Opposition – the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) got 229,330 votes.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-12-2020