Dear Editor, 

DURING  election without cycle, APNU+AFC has without doubt been playing by the  rules. The rule book, foreign to many has been a permanent fixture in our armoury. We live and breathe the political  constitutional commandments Law abiding we are because being law abiding is intertwined in the double helix of our DNA. On the contrary, the other electoral actors have buried, not only the rule book, but also the statutory documents from the ballot boxes. Oaths of  identities certificates of employment and log books were all burnt to unidentifiable ashes in their crematorium. And those were not their only indiscretions. For even as the ballots were being counted, they invaded GECOM armed to the teeth, driving fear in all and Sunday from chairperson to chairwoman and their supporters genotypically and phenotypically anarchist could not resist the opportunity to cause mayhem their place of terror was the East Coast of Demerara. The victims were innocent school children peace keeping policemen and women and policemen and women and innocent passersby who dared to be peacefully beading home one dead and many hospitalised was the result. Peaceful protesters they were labelled by their political masters. Election observers turned a blind eye, totally consumed with the region four tabulation.

Ballots over lives and the anarchist’s list went on as even our trusted institutions have become infected with the electoral non-compliance virus which turned out to be much more contagious the covid 19.

The chairperson of GECOM led the way as she instructed the CEO to advise her what she wished to be advice on. In effect, his advice would be her advice. And in so doing she demonstrated scant regard for the constitution reducing the CEO to a secretary who simply types what the boss instructed.

Regards

Dr. Mark Devonish

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-28-2020

…Ramjattan says Lowenfield should sue for malicious prosecution

WHEN the matter of the private criminal charges brought against him has made its passage through the Court, Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, should bring a tort of malicious prosecution against those who took him to court without probable cause and with malicious intent.

This is the advice of Leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC), Khemraj Ramjattan, who made the remarks on Sunday in response to the ill-preparedness of the lawyers who brought the said case against Lowenfield on July 24.

After bail in the sum of $450,000 had been granted to the CEO on three charges relating to alleged fraud and misconduct, the prosecutors, through their Attorney-at-Law, Glenn Hanoman, told the Court that they still had some 800 statements to gather from various witnesses.

They asked for a month-long adjournment to do so but the Court granted them up until mid-August. One of Lowenfield’s attorneys, Nigel Hughes, said that it was evident that the prosecutors were not ready and had merely set out to bring politics into the courtroom.

In his opinion, Ramjattan said that no forthcoming evidence on such serious charges should have resulted in the matter being thrown out by the Magistrate, Faith McGusty.

“It is an abuse of the process. You do not have statements on the file that can produce a charge, in accordance with the regular law as we know it, and you still proceed to the Court to prosecute? That’s persecution, that’s not prosecution. Although we do have a right to bring private criminal charges in Guyana, I believe, strongly, that absolutely — at the time when they brought these charges — not having the evidence it ought to have been dismissed,” he said while on an APNU+AFC programme.

On the programme it was noted that back in June 2020, one day before the High Court was set to rule in a contempt case – Reeaz Holladar v. Returning Officer for Region 4 Clairmont Mingo and others, Anil Nandlall – the applicant’s attorney, withdrew the matter over lack of sufficient evidence.

Though not handing down her ruling in the matter, Chief Justice (ag) Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire said that “the evidence is very, very deficient” and, in effect, would have wasted the Court’s time.

On the programme, Ramjattan said that not only do the prosecutors lack evidence but they have brought a case against a Constitutional office holder who, at all times, did his legitimate duty as CEO, according to the Law and Constitution.

Lowenfield has explained that, if he is to conduct his duties in keeping with the Constitution and law, the National Recount cannot form the basis of a declaration.

Drawing attention to Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA), he pointed out that Returning Officers are required to make their respective declarations, and the CEO, in accordance with Section 96 of the Act, is required to consider the declarations in the preparation of his Elections Report.

It is on this basis that he submitted his last Elections Report to the Commission on the basis of the 10 declarations made in March 2020.

Coming out of the Magistrates’ Court on Friday, Attorney-at-Law, Nigel Hughes, had stated that Hanoman made many political and personal statements about the CEO, as if he were attempting to make the Court into a “forum for a political battle”.

Ramjattan, in calling for the CEO to bring a tort of malicious prosecution against his current prosecutors said that he agreed with the position of Hughes.

He said: “I agree with him because, obviously, it is being thus done. We should not allow that, quite frankly. However, I believe also, the lawyers should file — immediately after — a malicious prosecution litigation at the High Court for damages…as soon as this thing has ended because it was obviously malicious and it is obviously wrong. I think substantial damages would be awarded in favour of Mr. Lowenfield.”

In dealing with the law, malicious prosecution occurs when one party has knowingly, and with malicious intent, initiated baseless litigation against another party. This includes both criminal charges and civil claims, for which the cause of action is essentially the same.

Generally, any malicious criminal proceeding that lacks probable cause — regardless of whether the claimant was tried or even indicted — may give rise to a malicious prosecution claim.

Ramjattan iterated: “You don’t, for criminal charges where the proof is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, do that to a Constitutional office holder. It is an absolute abuse of process and I believe that the Magistrate should have revisited it on that day, if not earlier, or the lawyers should go to the High Court with an abuse of process piece of litigation.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-28-2020

Dear Editor,
IT is with colossal alarm that I note the pernicious “private criminal charges” against a statutory officer of rectitude in the person of Mr. Keith Lowenfield. Such is his reward for acting in consonance with the Constitution of Guyana. Should this travesty and perversion of justice be allowed to proceed, the same would be indicative of a decadence in Guyana and send a subliminal signal to any other person of rectitude that this would be their lot should they dare to do what is just. Such an occurrence would precipitate the complete dissolution of any residual sense of decency in the Guyanese society.

It is fair to conclude that the Chairperson of GECOM wilfully and venomously misled Mr. Granger to think and boldly and repeatedly make the promulgation to the world, that the four stages of the recount process would operate, then shift her position though she no doubt would have seen or heard him give such a proclamation concomitant with the requisite public assurances and call for calm and patience. She is bereft of any decency, having not made any known attempt to correct him, knowing full well that she wouldn’t act in accordance with an accord to which she is a party.

It must never be assumed that this has missed the erudite Justice Singh. Her eminent junior, the current chief justice (ag), formerly taught Contract Law to a well-known comrade at the University of Guyana where, she instructed her class that in executing contractual responsibilities, the entire contract is breached if one facet of the said contract is breached. Given the aforementioned, I am absolutely stultified that we, like hapless malingerers, fail to lay a counter charge on Claudette Singh while Lowenfield is relegated to the crucible for his service to the nation. Imagine the optics; Claudette Singh reposes unmolested (which suggests innocence), while Lowenfield is baptised by fire (which assumes guilt). Where are the private criminal charges for the chairperson?

This attempt to impugn Lowenfield’s character shouldn’t be allowed to proceed without a response in the way of legal proceedings against her. By the unashamed utterances of those who represent the PPP and their demonstrable, dastardly actions, we can deduce that this matter could lead to a treasonous charge on that good man if the PPP should ever come to office. The infamous cases of Mark Benschop, Oliver Hinckson and the military couple whose lives have been forever destroyed come to mind and should serve as poignant reminders. I beseech us not to be dilatory, lacklustre and forgetful. I urge, in the strongest possible terms, to do the needful and take the necessary action lest we falter again in the eyes of the electorate that is already demoralised and unmotivated. These persons have placed their confidence and future in our hands. I thank you.

Most respectfully,
Paul Cort, M.Mus., B.Mus., Cert. Mus.
Assistant Professor of Music

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_27_2020

-say petition for her resignation unwarranted 

THE Liberty and Justice Party (L.JP), The New Movement (TNM) and the United Republican Party (URP) have come out in support of Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh and against calls for her resignation. 

Recently, a small group of Guyanese petitioned for Singh to resign, stating that while President David Granger had placed confidence in the GECOM Chair, they are currently dissatisfied with a number of decisions taken under her watch. 

However, in a release to the media, the LJP said that the party reiterates its support for the Chair and expressed its “disappointment and disgust” with the petition for her resignation. 

.. We conduce to maintain and express our support for Madam Chair. That the Chair continues to conduct herself in line with her life-long legal training and profession and in the most objective of manners poses the obvious threat to people who intend to undermine Guyana’s democracy and who want to hijack the will of the people,” the party stated. 

Meanwhile, the TNM encouraged Justice Singh to remain in high spirits as the election will soon come to an end. The party said that it finds disheartening, recent ill statements made about the Chair and wants her to know that the small group of protestors do not speak for ali Guyanese. 

” … we are confident that they will not pierce your just heart,” iron lady.” You have shown utmost courage, bravery and patriotism over the past months and we thank you. The nation is looking up to you and we anxiously but eagerly await the declaration of the pres­ident- elect. We encourage you to remain steadfast to the true numbers produced during the recount process which you executed and completed in a safe and efficient manner,” the TNM encouraged. 

In another press release of its own, the URP dubbed the Chair as “the most creditable Chairperson of GECOM ” The party said that Justice Singh is a woman of high standards, moral Integrity and honesty, who should not have to face a petition for her resignation. «Ms. Singh has been fair and impartial in all of her decisions in relation to bringing an end to the current electoral Impasse. Anyone in their right mind will not call for the resignation of such an outstanding pubIic servant who has conducted herself admirably as the GECOM Chair,” the URP stated, adding: 

“Let us not forget the lengthy process that eventu­ally placed this honourable lady in the position she now holds and executes with utmost legal tenacity and fortitude.” 

The petition signed by citizens for the Chair to resign had pinpointed one of the rea5ons as the Chair’s decision taken to terminate the house-to-house registration exercise prematurely in 2019, shortly after she was appointed 10 serve. 

The petitioners stated that the challenges currently faced are partially linked to GECOM’s fail­ure to cleanse the National Register of Registrants Database (NRRDB) and, by extension, the Official List of Electors (OLE) which resulted in a flawed and bloated OLE, the heart of the fraud uncov­ered during the national recount.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_27_2020

-AG males clear amid attempts by PPP/C’s lawyers ta mislead Appellate Court

AN attempt by the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) to mislead the Court of Appeal on the March 13 Declaration made by Region Four Returning Officer (RO) Clairmont Mingo was shut down by the Attorney-General, Basil \Villiams, who made it clear that that Declaration was never invalidated or dubbed fraudulent by the Courts, and therefore must form part of the official results of the General and Regional Elections to be declared by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). 

In his submissions before a panel of judges in the Court of Appeal on Saturday in the case, Misenga Jones v the Guyana Elections Commission and others, the PPP/C’s lead Attorney, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes argued that it is “an undisputed face· that Mingo’s Decla­ration was “fraudulent”. 

According to the Trinidadian Senior Counsel, there was “a foll trial” into the March 13 Declaration made by the Region Four Returning Officer, and undisputed “evidence” showed that electoral fraud had been committed. “As a matter of fact, there is no dispute of fact before the Court concerning Mingo’s declaration. None!” the Attorney-General submitted. 

He told the Appellate Court that Mendes’ contentions are furthest from the truth surrounding the declaration made by the Region Four Returning Officer.

In providing the facts, the Attorney- Gener­al turned the Appellate Court’s attention to the case, Bharrat Jagdeo and Reaz Holladar v the Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo and others, in which an attempt was made by the PPP/C to have the High Court set aside the March 13 dec­laration on the grounds that it was “fraudulent.” 

FACTS OF THE MATTER 

That attempt, the Attorney-General said, failed when High Court ,Judge Franklin Holder ruled that the Court bad no jurisdiction to bear the case brought by the Leader of the PPP/C, and that any challenge ought to come by way of an Elections Petition in accordance with Article 163 of the Constitution and the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act. 

In his declaration on March 13, Mingo announced that the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) secured 136, 057 votes in District 4 (Demerara-Mahaica) in the General Elections, while the PPP/C secured 77, 231 votes. Jagdeo and Holladar, in their application, contended that based on Statements of Poll (SOPs) in their posses­sion, the declaration made by the Region 4 Returning Officer was flawed. 

Justice Holder, in handing down his deci­sion, said the core issues raised in the application touch on matters provid­ed for in Article I 63 (I)  of the Constitution, and as such ought to be dealt with by way of an Elections Petition, pursuant to Section 3 of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act.

  According to Article 163 (I) (b) (i), the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine any question on whether, “either generally or in any particular place, an election has been lawfully conducted or the result thereof has been, or may have been, affected by any unlawful act or omission.” 

The Attorney-General told the Appellate Court that it is instructive to note that Justice Holder’s decision in the case brought by Jagdeo and Holladar was never challenged. “It was never appealed,” he emphasised. 

Mendes, in declaring Mingo’s Declaration fraudulent, argued that if the Appellate Court finds that it has jurisdiction to set aside the National Recount executed under Order Number 60, it should also assume jurisdiction to invalidate the March 13 Declaration. However, he made the proposition, notwithstanding the fact that he had conceded that any challenge to the validity of Mingo’s Declaration must be made via an Elections: Petition under Article I 63 ( I )(b). 

The Attorney-General. told the Appellate Judges: that Mendes ought to have informed them that he, on behalf of the PPP/C, had challenged the March 13 Declaration and was unsuccessful. 

The Attorney-General submitted that the High Court established that it had no jurisdiction to set aside the March 13 Decla­ration, and GECOM, like the High Court, cannot set aside the IO Declarations, as only an Elections Petition Court can do that. “Those IO Declarations have not been invalidated, and the CCJ [the Carib­bean Court of Justice] said that they cannot be invalidated, except by an Elections Petition Court,” Williams argued. 

Aside from the case filed before Justice Holder in late March, the PPP/C had filed a contempt case, Reaz 1-lolladar v. Return­ing Officer for Region 4 Clairmont Mingo and others, on March 12, on the grounds that Mingo had not complied with the March I I orders of Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire. 

The Chief Justice had ruled that the first declaration of votes made by the Region 4 Returning Officer on March 5 was unlawful, on the grounds that there was substan­tial non-compliance with Section 84 (I) of the Representation of the People Act when the Statements of Poll (SOPs) for District 4 were tabulated. She then ordered that the verification process, which was interrupted, be resumed or restarted, and that the SOPs be tabulated and projected in the presence of persons entitled to be there under the law. 

On March 13, Mingo made bis second declaration in accordance with the Representation of the People Act and submitted that the High Court established that it had no jurisdiction to set aside the March 13 Decla­ration, and GECOM, like the High Court, cannot set aside the IO Declarations, as only an Elections Pe­tition Court can do that. “Those IO Declarations have not been invalidated, and the CCJ [the Carib­bean Court of Justice] said that they cannot be invalidated, except by an Elections Petition Court,” Williams argued. 

Aside from the case filed before Justice Holder in late March, the PPP/C had filed a contempt case, Reeaz 1-lolladar v. Return­ing Officer for Region 4 Clairmont Mingo and others, on March 12, on the grounds that Mingo had not complied with the March I I orders of Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire. 

The Chief Justice had ruled that the first decla­ration of votes made by the Region 4 Returning Officer on March 5 was unlawful, on the grounds that there was substan­tial non-compliance with Section 84 (I) of the Rep­resentation of the People Act when the Statements of Poll (SOPs) for District 4 were tabulated. She then ordered that the verifica­tion process, which was interrupted, be resumed or restarted, and that the SOPs be tabulated and projected in the presence of persons entitled to be there under the law. 

On March 13, Mingo made bis second dec­laration in accordance with the Representation of the People Act and the Orders of the Court, according to the Chid Elections Officer, Keith Lowen field. 

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL 

In ,June, three months after the contempt case was filed, PPP/C Attor­ney-at-Law Anil Naodlall filed a notice of with­drawal due to the lack of sufficient evidence. 

The last-minute deci­sion, which can1e one day before the High Court was scheduled to hand down its ruling, did not sit well with the Chief Justice, who chided Nandlall for wasting the court’s time when he W’dS fully aware that the application, as filed, did not meet the threshold for a contempt of court proceeding. 

.. , an1 very sorry, Mr. Nandlall, this is most un­acceptable,” the Chief Justice told the Attorney during the hearing of the High Court case. Though not handing down her rul­ing in the matter, Justice George-Wiltshire said, “The evidence is very, very deficient,” and that in effect, Nandlall would have wasted the Court’s time. 

Meanwhile, in reject­ing Mendes’ arguments, the Attorney-General told the Appellate Court that the challenge brought by him has to do with the failure of the Chairman of the Elections Commission, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh to declare the re­sults of the elections in accordance with the Con­stitution and Represen­tation of the People Act. I-le made it clear that his cross-appeal has nothing to do with the validity of the elections, but rather the procedure to be fol­lowed by Justice Singh as Chairman of the Elections Commission. 

“This is not a case challenging the declarations; those declarations are extant.. They cannot be rescinded or in­validated, except by an elections Court, as the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) [has] said,” the Attorney-General told the Appellate Court. 

According to him, the Chairman of the Elec­tions Commission must, in accordance with the Chief Elections Officer’s Report, declare the Head of the APNU+AFC List President elect. 

He said that the GECOM Chair having thus far failed to execute her constitutional man­date, it is now left to the  Court, in its supervisory capacity, to order her to execute her constitution­al functions.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_27_2020

WHILE some see government’s call for dialogue between itself and the main opposition as cunning, Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo gave a reminder on Sunday that such calls date back as far as 1977 and its delay at this critical juncture in Guyana’s history may very well lead to the country’s downfall.

In his weekly newspaper column, the prime minister said that the on-going elections, marred by a bloated voter’s list, the use of dirty money, influence-peddling and an almost-paralysed elections commission, has caused Guyana its “deepest crisis ever.”

He said that the only way forward from the disagreements the two parties share, towards an outcome that benefits the Guyanese people, is dialogue. However, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), through its leaders, has stated that it will not be open to talks with the government until after the elections.

Nagamootoo stated: “For the PPP to come to the table would require a tough decision by visionary leaders. They would use history as a guide and avoid impetuous responses. On August 12, 1977, then President Forbes Burnham rejected an offer made by Opposition Leader Cheddi Jagan for the PNC and the PPP to form a ‘National Front Government.’ Sadly, to this day, over 40 years later, Guyana is still bleeding from her wounds due to ethno-political division and the animosity between those two major parties.”

As reported in 1977, the People’s National Congress (PNC) had rejected the offer because the party did not believe it proposed the type of unity Guyana was badly in need of. “For the PNC, the real issue is national unity. This cannot be achieved by a mere power-sharing deal by political leaders. Jagan showed no interest in promoting national cohesion on a class basis,” the PNC had stated then as its position.

In his column, the prime minister pointed out that there were many other calls for dialogue and an agreement towards cooperation coming from the likes of former United States (U.S.) President Jimmy Carter in 2004, after a visit to Guyana.

At the time he noted that “incompatibility and animosity” characterised the relationship between the parties and added that “instead of achieving this crucial goal of inclusive and shared governance, the Guyanese government remains divided with a winner-takes-all concept that continues to polarise many aspects of the nation’s life.”

In more recent times, Nagamootoo noted the re-emergence of ‘The Guyana Renewal Project,’ through which Guyanese intellectuals, both local and abroad, have proposed the specifics for inclusive governance.

The project proposes a rotation of the presidency and the prime ministership; a Cabinet that includes representatives from the two major political parties and the joinder party; practical inclusive governance at the ministerial level; that the national budget be required to be passed by a two-thirds majority as opposed to the simple majority; the establishment of two high-level committees: an Executive Committee for Inclusive Governance and an Executive Committee for Policy and Economic and Development Planning and the re-engineering of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to become more modernised and be less “vulnerable to interference.”

In addition to this, Nagamootoo also pointed to the recent remarks of former Ambassador, Geoffrey Dasilva who, in observation of Guyana’s political stalemate and inter-ethnic rivalry, put forward that “the solution is not an elective despotism (a winner-takes-all government), not a dictatorship. Either situation would definitely widen ethnic/class disparities with grave consequences.”

The prime minister said that it is clear that many Guyanese see through the surface of the country’s political challenges to the root of the matter and have long called for a remedy in the form of dialogue and inclusive governance.

Nagamootoo said that such action is needed in Guyana now more than ever as citizens on both sides are rallying for their will to be respected through the ballot and, an outcome that places one political party over the other, in a winner-takes-all fashion, will not prove beneficial to the country.

“For Guyanese citizens, not versed in nuances of political opportunism or skulduggery, the call for dialogue at this time is an SOS distress signal. They see that Guyana’s ship of state is in danger and they want all hand on deck to literally save their souls, as they battle the COVID pandemic and try to cut corners for survival,” he said.

“This time around the shoe is on the other foot and it is the government that holds out the olive branch to the opposition. If history were to repeat itself, yesterday’s farce would be today’s tragedy…it is in this fresh context that we should see the critical importance of dialogue. The alternative would be a vicious cycle of conflict, confrontation and non-cooperation.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_27_2020

THE APNU+AFC has stated that it will not remain silent while authorities — local and abroad — ignore evidence of electoral fraud in Guyana’s elections and made known its calls, once again, on Sunday, for “valid votes” only, to determine the outcome of the elections.

In a press release, the coalition party said that it has written a total of 63 letters to the Chair and Secretariat of the Elections Commission requesting that these and other issues which were “parked” be dealt with.

The party said that it speaks volumes that it has only received 6 responses to the 63 letters. As a major stakeholder in the elections, the party said that it finds this “totally unacceptable”.

It noted GECOM’s current position that “fraudulent votes” be included in the final tabulations coming out of the 33-day recount process but contended that all fraudulent votes must be excluded.

“We recall that in our press release of June 7, 2020, APNU+AFC noted, with disappointment, the decision of GECOM to tabulate and include over 11,000 fraudulent votes found in 47 ballot boxes from the East Coast of Demerara and others revealed in the laborious recount process which have been carefully quantified and discrepancies verified from authorizing agencies,” the APNU+AFC stated.

The coalition said that it entered into the recount process with the expectation that the misgivings regarding the Mingo declarations would be investigated and, even so, unlike what took place in 1997 under the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), President David Granger did not secretly have himself sworn in.

The APNU stated that the President instead suggested a recount, noting that his party has nothing to hide. What came out of the said process, the APNU+AFC stated, was “indications of massive fraud and rigging perpetrated and to the benefit of the PPP/C.”

According to the party, gazetted Order No. 60 of 2020 outlined an approach and, as Appeal Court Judge Brassington Reynolds in his ruling stated, “Counsel for the second-named respondent [Chairperson of GECOM] admitted that GECOM did set as its objective, determining the final credible count of votes.”

“With this in mind we find it unconscionable that the fraud found in 1,261 infected boxes, revealed under the watchful eyes and in the presence of local and international observers, members of the diplomatic community and election agents from all the political parties, received no condemnation. These groups with their continued silence on this fraud have displayed their absence of fairness and impartiality which has spawned a suspicion and lack of trust amongst the more than 236,000 APNU+AFC supporters who voted in these elections. This threatens the stability of Guyana,” the coalition put forward.

It added that, coupled with the threat of COVID-19; the unfolding events in Venezuela; and the constant threatening comments directed to GECOM, the President, Government officials and supporters when GECOM has not yet made a declaration, is a clear indication of a “carefully orchestrated plan to oust a legitimately elected government” and to implement regime change.

APNU+AFC said that these developments are contrary to the democratic principles the coalition holds dear and therefore reiterated its call for results based only on votes which can be verified as credible.

In response, on the same day, the PPP/C stated that the APNU+AFC has a “delusion notion of an electoral victory” contending that all allegations of fraud are unsubstantiated.

The party further contended that the coalition continues to speak to matters already set aside by the Court. It went as far as to make light of the seriousness of mental illness by suggesting that the author of the press release was “schizophrenic” and “in dire need of psychiatric attention”.

The PPP/C stated: “If anything at all, this statement is proof to the world that the rigging cabal has clearly lost their minds and remains a threat of danger to Guyana and its people.”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_27_2020

By Adam Harris

FOR the second time in a year, I have seen moves to jail people for doing their work. And it is not as if the work for which the term of imprisonment is sought is limited to that person alone.

The first instance that I recall involved Finance Minister, Winston Jordan. A foreign company moved to the courts against the government for monies owed. It secured judgement and moved to get its money. It so happened that this foreign company was indebted to a number of state institutions.
As is their right, from the time the foreign company moved to the courts, they applied to the very courts to garnish the funds that may be payable to the foreign company.
The courts handed down its decision against the government. Suddenly, the Minister of Finance became the party responsible for paying the debt. He was then targeted. Lawyers attached to the Opposition People’s Progressive Party moved to the court seeking to have the Finance Minister jailed for contempt.
He had delayed paying the money to the foreign company because he had to satisfy himself that Guyana would get its money from the foreign company.
I don’t know whether he was too slow in making the payments, but I do know that the Guyana Revenue Authority got its share of the award. The remainder of the money was paid to the foreign company long before a contempt motion was filed in the court and an order handed down to jail Minister Jordan for contempt.
President David Granger used his prerogative to waive the jail sentence against Jordan. The noise from the opposition was deafening; they so wanted to see a member of the coalition government end up in jail.

Even after the money was paid to the foreign company, which quietly collected but kept its mouth closed, the opposition elements kept insisting that Minister Jordan go to jail. They went back to court only to find out that the case had no merit since all accounts had been paid.
Put the shoe on the other foot. Anil Nandlall was dragged before the courts for stealing law volumes, property of the Attorney General Chambers. That case has been languishing for so long, even though there was nothing to prevent it being heard.
He was released on his own recognizance. That meant that he did not have to post monetary bail.
Then there is the Irfaan Ali matter. Ali has been slapped with nineteen fraud charges. He appeared in the magistrates’ court. From time to time he has been seeking postponements. The lawyers, for their part and with the support of the magistrates, succeeded in stalling any movement of the matter.
Ali, too, was released on his own recognizance.

Both Ali and Nandlall played the waiting game. They knew that if they got a favourable elections result the charges would disappear.
So we now have Lawyer Glenn Hanoman rushing to prosecute Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield. Two of his peers filed private criminal charges against Lowenfield.
Even before the writ was served, Hanoman announced that he was looking to jail Lowenfield for life. When Lowenfield appeared in court on Friday, on the three private criminal charges, Magistrate Faith McGusty set bail at $150,000 per charge.
It was not a case of Lowenfield not being known and therefore could not have been sent on his own recognizance. Nandlall was released on his own recognizance and his was not a private criminal charge.

There has long been talk of the jurists favouring one political party or the other in spite of talk about the judiciary being independent. Indeed, people would have their own political persuasion. One should not deny an individual the right to exercise his political opinion. So, there is independence as far as action is concerned.
Of course, one would not expect to see a judge or a magistrate on a political platform or making political statements. But one would certainly be surprised when, by their actions, judges make decisions that appear to have a political bias. And this is nothing unusual.
The lawyers representing Lowenfield explained what transpired in the court and I was not shocked. For starters, Glenn Hanoman was not ready to proceed with his case although he had signalled weeks ago that he had charges lined up for Lowenfield.
In court, he proceeded to announce that he would be calling Senior Counsel Neil Boston as one of his witnesses. One would have expected that the prosecutor would have informed his witnesses. And he did say that he had eight hundred witnesses.
Then something strange happened. Hanoman said that he was not opposed to bail, but then he told the court that he had a problem with Lowenfield having access to sensitive documents in the possession of the Guyana Elections Commission.
What was the recommendation?

He then proceeded to say that Lowenfield had property in every conceivable location in Guyana. What was the reason for that? Was Hanoman suggesting irregularity?
Both Attorney Nigel Hughes and Senior Counsel Boston described Hanoman’s address to Magistrate Faith McGusty as an address one would hear at Babu Jaan or at Lusignan at a PPP rally. Perhaps the rules of court have changed.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-26-2020

THIS past week, the APNU+AFC announced that it was prepared to enter into dialogue with any of the opposition political parties. This announcement , described as an “olive branch” by this publication, came against the background of concerns that the longer the impasse arising out of the March 2 elections continues, the more the stability of the country is potentially compromised. As the APNU+AFC statement sates: “The APNU+AFC Coalition, in the national interest, and with a view to maintaining stability and peace, remains open to dialogue with other political parties and stakeholders on the way forward for our country. The APNU+AFC Coalition is prepared to act responsibly to bring a resolution to the ongoing political situation.”

Without even seeking clarification on exactly what aspect of the impasse the coalition wishes to dialogue on, the PPP and the other parties promptly rejected the offer. The PPP repeated its well-known bottom line—it will not talk to the coalition until the PPP is declared the winner. A similar sentiment was echoed by the smaller parties. This is indeed unfortunate that seemingly responsible parties are prepared to sacrifice the country’s stability for their narrow pursuit of partisan power. It is really a sad day that our country has reached this plateau of naked political selfishness.

We do not use those words lightly. But we feel they are warranted. Its now almost five months since the elections and all parties are entitled to brandish their narratives. However, there comes a time when the needs of the country must supersede the partisan impulses. That time is now. When the dust settles, it is the Guyanese people who will have to do the rebuilding of trust.

Be that as it may, this publication congratulates the coalition for its political maturity. It is common knowledge that there have always been communal undertones and overtones in our elections. This point was recently brought to our attention by elder Eusi Kwayana and is worth quoting here: “ I only wish to warn, as I have done since the 1960s, that what in many Caribbean countries is simply an election among citizens, in Guyana includes other complexities. Here in Guyana, in the tissues of every general election are the fibres of communal struggle resulting from conscious designs of the colonial occupation.”
It is plain for all to see that the country is on the edge. On both sides of the political divide, the popular masses have remained committed to their respective parties. That is their right. But in the process they are also expressing their fears. While the matter is wrapped up in the courts, the issue of the fears in the wider society is the responsibility of the political leaders. When in 1997 there was a similar post-election impasse, in the face of political instability the two parties quickly went to the table to negotiate a settlement of the issue. The outcome was the Herdmanston Accord, which ultimately led to an end to street protests. It also led to an audit of the elections and electoral reform.

This is the spirit that we feel is absolutely necessary in the current circumstances. The PPP’s refusal to come to the table may be influenced by its perceived support from the external forces. If this is true, then it is quite unfortunate. There is much at stake here—the very survival of the country. History will not be kind to those who by their acts of omission allow the situation to further deteriorate. The PPP still has a chance to redeem itself and do what is right for the country. There is a golden opportunity to live up to our aspiration of One People, One Nation, One Destiny.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-26-2020

Dear Editor
THE Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s (GCCI) recent call for the Guyana Elections Commission(GECOM) to declare the official results of the March 02, national and regional elections, without awaiting the hearing and result of the current judicial process about to engage the Guyana Court of Appeal, is another example of the frantic assault of regime change, co-conspired by both internal and external forces, against the coalition A Partnership for National Unity+Alliance For Change(APNU+AFC) administration.

Editor, this is a continuing tragedy, which highlights trenchant disregard for the laws of Guyana, inclusive of the hallowed known due process being brutally trampled and torn up by the shameless political mercenaries, vile opportunists, and well-known political gangsters comprising the Nicholas Boyers et al, all part of the political opposition contrived conspiracy with its shameless anti-national perpetrators, brought into full culmination with the criminal springboard of the NCM. Leading into the national elections and the shocking abundance of fraud unearthed in opposition-controlled areas, displays a flagrant disregard for all facets of social morality which every society must have as its beacon for law and order and social stability.

If those whose daily forte of continuing this illegal appeal, believe that it will give strength and fortification to their demands, unlawful, then they should understand that their lawless behaviour releases destructive demons which will return to haunt this nation. For when such calls, which clearly points to disregarding the nation’s constitutional laws, it sends a negative message to mainstream society that are interpreted further, and replicated in so many other ways. Have we all forgotten about the descent into social behavioural anarchy, which bedevilled this nation with all the attendant ills of a bygone era and the damage which it still continue to cause this country, despite commendable efforts by the present administration to infuse a new understanding of morality, decency, and respect for our laws?
One must ponder, just how do these participants in what has now been established as an open assault on a duly elected government, using the fact of fatally flawed elections which have been proven fraudulent, to force regime change, believe such acts will hold for the future of this nation?

This, in any lawful jurisdiction, is unquestionably unlawful and places such a plot in the category of coups, attempted coups, etcetera. Do these people, hellishly frantic, understand that such examples are dangerous for the understanding of the state and its democratic organs and their processes, as to how the state should evolve for democracy? And that it has the inevitable effect of cascading to all reaches of society, thereby distorting the understanding of the legitimate purpose of governance and the genuine democratic process of transition? There is no question or doubt that such political gangsterism, will influence negatively the general social conduct of citizens. How then can they be blamed, when such is the milieu that is being proffered as regular, normal, and accepted by anti-nationalists who are in league with extra-sovereign forces to dismember their country – a fact that has now been exposed and known to all?

Regards
Earl Hamilton

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-26-2020