By Moses V. Nagamootoo

MANY years ago, commenting on one of our past bogus elections, I remarked that, “the eagles have landed” when ballot boxes were fetched away in a light aircraft. Today, looking at claims that persons voted for the dead and for those who have left the country, I add a new refrain, “the phantoms have landed”.

In the old days when rigging was obscenely spelt differently and had become a norm at election-time, a joke was circulated about a woman who was crying hysterically.

A reporter politely asked: “Why are you crying?”

The sobbing woman replied: “My husband voted today at our village school.”

Reporter: “So, why are you crying?”

Woman: “He died 10 years ago, and I am hurt to know that Pa come back till hey and he did not come to see his faithful old wife!”

SYSTEMATIC FRAUD

I can see the 2020 elections becoming the subject of new jokes of how the dead resurrected, and voted. And there would be new ballads or rap songs how, at a time when airports were closed, some Guyanese travelled on broomsticks from overseas, voted and mysteriously disappeared!

In other words, it is clear that the 35-day recount process has unmasked a calculated and systematic fraud on our elections. Voter impersonation on a wide scale has not just defied and defiled the standards of free and fair elections, but exposed Guyana to be ridiculed as a nation with jumbie, or phantom voters!

Over 100 days have elapsed since the March 2, 2020 general and regional polls, but the long wait is about to end. It is expected that the Elections Commission will shortly make a final decision on the outcome of the elections, at the end of a four-stage recount process.

NOT FREE OR CREDIBLE

Late yesterday, it was disclosed that Chief Elections Officer, Mr. Keith Lowenfield, has submitted his report on the recount and observations regarding each of the 10 electoral districts. Immediately, before anyone had an opportunity to digest the report, the Opposition PPP literally grabbed the Chief Elections Officer by the throat in a political chokehold, and questioned his right to interpret the multitude of irregularities and observations that led him to the conclusion that the elections were not free or credible.

This has been a meticulous and protracted period that has given rise to anxieties as to the final results of an election held 106 days ago. For those who are still wondering why the recount has taken so long, it must be made clear that this process is manually driven. Each of the 460,352 ballots from the 2,339 boxes was counted, one by one. In addition, objections had to be heard and observations recorded, and all official documents used during polling had to be examined.

If nothing else, the recount had to be a thorough, painstaking and time-consuming affair, which was done under restrictive conditions at this time as Guyana faces the COVID-19 pandemic.

Though conceding that the process has dragged on for too long, I also recognise that it remains guided by the prescriptions of the Constitution, the directions of the judiciary and the scrutiny by all contesting political parties, foreign and local observers, and supervisors from the Caribbean Community.

The administrative arrangements for the recount process have been as transparent as you could expect, though the same cannot be said about the credibility of the ballots, since over 7,000 claims have been lodged about irregularities and anomalies, including voter impersonation of persons who are deceased or are living in the diaspora.

BLOATED VOTERS LIST

It seems that the bloated voters’ list for the 2020 polls has created the opportunity for the mischief of voter impersonation.

Guyana, like all other under-developed countries, has experienced the dialectics of migration whereby citizens chose to work and live in the so-called higher economies. Over decades, we suffered from brain drain, as Guyanese became both political and economic refugees overseas. Over time, family members joined them in the seemingly unending travail in search of better opportunities.

Looking at how our population suffered, Stanley Ming, an outstanding national investor, businessman, motor racer and statistical analyst, gave recent statistical data, that the total population in 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2012 was 745,000, 751,000, 723,000, 751,000 and 747,000 respectively. This gives an average of 743,000 for the past 42 years from 1970-2012.

Based on the population trend, Mr. Ming published what I accept as credible figures on what the voters list should be, using a fair average of the population at 750,000 for the period 2012-2020. He then constructed as “logical mathematical reality” a voting population of 500,000 after excluding 250,000 children below the age of 18 years.

Ming’s projected figures were based on the 2011 official list of voters which had   475,496 persons, of which 342,236 or 72 per cent voted.

He based his case on the Suriname experience where voters in 2015 and 2020 were 64 per cent of total population. In the same years, in Guyana voters were 76 per cent in 2015 (with population at 767,432) and 84 per cent in 2020 (with population at 782,766). For 2015 and 2020, the number of registered voters was 585,527 and 660,998 respectively.

PHANTOMS HAD LANDED

Assuming that the registered voters realistically were 500,000 (and not 661,000), a turnout of 460,000 would be an incredible 92 per cent, as compared to 40 per cent turnout at the local government elections in November 2018. Indeed, the phantoms had landed!

It does not need someone with a microscope to detect that something was so fishy about the 2020 elections that it stinks to the high heavens! It is not only fishy. It is fraudulent!

I have walked the journey for electoral democracy over many decades, but little did I expect that towards the end of it, I would again stumble on the crooked rocks of deception and fraud, which the recount has now exposed. It seems that I have been walking in a vicious circle. This time around, it shall not pass scrutiny or judgment. The common resolve of our dignified people must be, “no more rigged elections!”

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-14-2020

…coalition says GECOM can’t turn blind eye to claims of fraud

The Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, in submitting his Report on the National Recount, not only complied with the Order, that triggered the process, but the Constitution of Guyana and the Representation of the People Act, the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU+AFC) said as it brushed aside contentions by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) that the CEO violated the Order, when he pronounced on the credibility of the General and Regional Elections.

In his Observation Reports to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Lowenfield said due to the anomalies and instances of voter impersonation cited during the recount process, the General and Regional Elections held on March 2, undoubtedly, did not satisfy the criteria of impartiality, fairness and compliance with the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act. As a result, he said it cannot be ascertained that the results of the Electoral Districts meet the standard of fair and credible elections.

The CEO’s assessment of the electoral process did not sit well with the PPP/C. The party, in accusing the CEO of violating the Order, said he has no power or authority or any mandate to offer a view, opinion or judgement of any type. “In a clear and blatant violation of the Order, Lowenfield arrogated unto himself the role of an investigator, Judge and executioner and made conclusive findings, in respect of the wild, reckless and baseless allegations made by APNU+AFC and rendered a judgement on them…,” the PPP/C contended as it launched an attack on the CEO.

In a separate statement, the Private Sector Commission (PSC), an accredited Elections Observer, expressed satisfaction with the electoral process, inclusive of the recount. Notwithstanding the mountain of irregularities and alleged cases of voter impersonation, the PSC said the recount process produced an entirely credible tabulation of the results of the General and Regional Elections.

“The Private Sector Commission is, therefore, appalled that the Chief Elections Officer of GECOM should submit a Report to the Chairman of the Elections Commission  that from “the  information furnished from the Recount, it cannot be ascertained that the results …meet the standard of fair and credible elections,” the PSC said.

But the APNU+AFC, in a separate statement, said the CEO’s Report was submitted in accordance with the Order, and painted a vivid picture of the unlawful acts that were committed on Elections Day, even as it called out the PPP/C for seeking to misinform the people of Guyana and the Diplomatic Corps inclusive of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

“The Representation of the People Act is pellucidly clear in PART X1, which addresses the Ascertainment of Election Results. Additionally, in Article 96 of the Constitution, the CEO is empowered to” calculate the total valid votes of electors cast and thereupon ascertain the results”. This therefore means to discover with certainty as through examination or experimentation. This is what was done,” the APNU+AFC said.

The ruling coalition used the opportunity to underscore the importance of establishing credibility in an electoral process in arriving at the valid votes cast.

“It is unfortunate that the PPP seeks to malign the CEO Mr. Lowenfield who has acted with the ambit of the Law and is in strict compliance with the Gazetted order,” the APNU+AFC said as it condemned PPP/C for its attacks on the CEO.

The PPP/C’s remarks, the Coalition said, denigrates the work of the CEO and his staff together with everyone else, who contributed to the recount process,  in GECOM’s quest to establish credibility. “It is noteworthy that the CEO’s report indeed has considered the fraudulent discoveries by our Counting Agents during the just concluded Recount process, which was agreed to by both the PPP and the APNU/AFC Coalition,” it noted while calling on Guyanese to allow the recount process to continue uninterrupted.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-14-2020

By Adam Harris

FOR years Guyanese have been looking to foreign countries for their salvation. Indeed, this was not only the case of Guyanese. People generally looked to foreign lands, some say to better their lives, others say that they were escaping persecution.

In reality, though, man is nomadic, so he, through the eons, has been moving from place to place. History is full of those names. Some of these were so-called conquerors. These people left their homes in hordes to go to foreign lands. They more often than not slaughtered the people, particularly the men, and enslaved the women and children, and plundered the land. Some stayed behind while others moved on for further conquests.

These people spanned every ethnic group. In some of these countries the stronger tribes preyed on the weaker. That led to some people ending up in this part of the world as slaves. They were sold as slaves to other marauding people-people who just could not stay at home.

But enough of the history lesson. Guyanese began to look overseas largely because of the invitation from the warring north. Guyana was a British colony so whenever Britain was embroiled in a way it simply turned to its colonies for men to boost its army.

So it was that many Guyanese travelled to Britain both during the First World War and the Second World War. As colonials they remained in the country when the war ended. Guyanese simply got involved in a matter that was not theirs. It was slightly different with the United States. That country wanted skills that Guyanese had. Teachers and nurses were premium recruits. Up until recently, agents were visiting the country for these skilled Guyanese.

Canada offered a programme called self-sponsorship. Guyanese who were educated and possessed certain skills could apply for Canadian residency. Many succeeded and are now resident there. The Caribbean countries became the next repository of Guyanese. When this country found itself in dire economic straits many of its people fled to the Caribbean and to the neighbouring countries. It is therefore not surprising that there are large Guyanese populations in Trinidad, Barbados, Jamaica, the smaller islands, Brazil, Venezuela, Suriname and Cayenne.

In the Caribbean in particular Guyanese are needed. They are the artisans, the educators, the nurses and the minds behind the industry in those countries. Recently, Guyana discovered oil and is set to become the leading nation in this part of the world. The Caribbean is not sitting idly by. Trinidad, with its knowledge of the oil industry invested heavily in Guyana’s local content.

They are still coming as are the Venezuelans who are experiencing hardships in their country, the Cubans, the Brazilians who are enjoying life in the goldfields and a host of people from other parts of the Caribbean. The end result is that these Caribbean countries are beneficiaries of Guyana’s largesse. Their citizens in Guyana are supporting their economies to the point that the leaders of these countries cannot envisage life without their people being in Guyana.

It is this self-interest that prompted St Vincent Prime Minister, Ralph Gonsalves, to become involved in Guyana’s politics even before the recount is completed. He has citizens making hay in this country and he needs their presence here.

Many years ago, when I was a schoolboy I learnt in a science class that water always seeks the point of least resistance. Political leaders be they Guyanese or others are the same. With his emphasis on being fit and proper, President David Granger is not the casual leader who would dissipate Guyana’s patrimony on the basis of friendship alone.

At the same time he is not the philanderer and abuser of alcohol like some of the other boys in the Caribbean Community. He would not be comfortable sitting around people whose interest is in abusing women. The result is Ralph Gonsalves is one who would not feel very comfortable with Granger in the seat of Government. He would prefer Bharrat Jagdeo or Jagdeo’s surrogate because their social habits coincide. There is another side to the interference. These islands need Guyanese. The presence of the oil wealth, if properly managed would see the Guyanese packing their bags and returning home. Caribbean leaders do not want this to happen.

People have pointed to the foreign entities that have been critical of the stance taken by the coalition in the face of the discovered electoral fraud. These people want a pliant government in place. Over the years the foreign powers have been dictating to the governments in less powerful countries. Cuba, Venezuela, Libya, Iraq and Iran have been examples. Jimmy Carter came here and dictated the nature of the elections commission this country could have.

He went further; he dictated the manner in which the elections should be conducted.  Recently, despite the laws of Guyana allowing for elections petitions, the foreign powers pressured David Granger so that he aborted the only legal recourse and took Guyana into uncharted waters. Now we see another attempt to dictate. There has been a recount which is still incomplete. Yet I get the impression that the people on the outside want to dictate that the recount as gazette be ignored. And I reach this conclusion after no foreign diplomat or foreign observer has commented on the discovered electoral fraud which has the potential to vitiate the elections.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-14-2020

Dear Editor,

PERMIT me to congratulate Dr Henry Jeffrey on his excellent column Future Notes article captioned, “ Votes in the boxes,” published in the Stabroek News, Wednesday, June 10, 2020 edition.

Mr Jeffrey’s article is to date, in my opinion,  the most informative and robust contribution addressing the pertinent issue of jurisprudence as it relates to irregularities, discrepancies and fraud in elections. His advocacy is enlightenment in the context of challenges coming out of the elections and the recount process. More specifically, the issue of the weight given to above-mentioned matters, when a court of law is seeking to determine  credibility of the elections results.

He cited two contending views: (1) whether the totality of irregularities/discrepancies etc, is sufficient to alter the logic of the vote (quantitative principle) and (2) that discrepancies and irregularities even when it would not alter the vote, once proven, nullify the results (qualitative principle). Dr Jeffrey premised his argument on the qualitative principle: he stated that GECOM must address the anomalies to decide on the credibility of the elections. This qualitative principle is evolving and gaining growing acceptance in jurisprudence around the world.

His political experience in  national politics, expertise and his academic training allow him to produce a politically balanced discourse on the electoral crisis and the recount process that was well thought out and supported by appropriate authorities.

Editor, I wish to add my support to this patriotic endeavour and to recommend Jeffrey’s column to your readership and more particularly,to our national decision-makers. Well done Dr Henry Jeffrey.

Regards
Tacuma Ogunseye

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-14-2020

– says US Congresswoman Yvette Clarke

“We are monitoring, from the Congressional side, all of the various players that are either interfering or trying to put their thumbs on the scale of the elections in Guyana.”

Those were the thoughts of United States Congresswoman Yvette Clarke who was on Friday night responding to questions posed by social activist Mark Benschop on his radio programme, “Straight Up”, as regards interference and threats made to the electoral process here in Guyana by officials of the US State Department.

The results of the elections of March, 2, 2020 are still to be declared, and back-and- forth movements within the courts here, as well as a recent recount process have seen their release being delayed by almost three months.

Added to this, a number of officials of the US Congress and State Department have been pronouncing on the process, and even making veiled threats as to what action the US and the wider international community are likely to take, should the results not go a certain way.

Among those officials is Assistant Secretary in the US Department of State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Michael Kozak who has been constantly sharing his views on Twitter about the Guyana situation.

On Benschop Radio 107.1FM on Friday night, Congresswoman Clarke began by saying that the United States, under the Donald Trump administration, is corrupt on many levels, and that it is “a travesty” that the principles on which the US Government stands are being diminished, because, the way it is structured, the playing field is seen as equal at every level of governance.

A Democratic member of the US House of Representatives for the State of New York, Congresswoman Clarke is maintaining that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) must be free to do its job without interference from any group, “so this can be a free and fair elections”.

A Brooklyn native of Jamaican heritage, Clarke was elected to the House of Representatives in November 2006 and today represents the Ninth Congressional District of New York.

LONG-AWAITED REPORT
Here in Guyana, Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, was expected to hand over his report on the national recount to GECOM Chairman Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh on Saturday.

That report, which is to comprise a tabulation of the votes cast at the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections, will also include a summary of the observation reports for each of the 10 Electoral Districts. It is in these observation reports that the incumbent A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Coalition, has primarily highlighted over 6,000 cases it believes are tied to electoral fraud. According to the APNU+AFC, close to 90,000 votes have been compromised as a result of these suspected fraudulent acts.

These cases include: Missing Official Lists of Electors; ballots for one region being cast in another; ballots cast for the dead and persons who have migrated; persons voting without proper identification; persons voting outside of their districts without employment documents; large numbers of improperly stamped ballots at locations where Disciplined Services members voted; missing poll books; and documents from one polling station being found in the ballot boxes of another.

The Guyana Chronicle reported on Saturday that, notably, on the eve of the submission, reports surfaced that the Elections Secretariat has confirmed that the names of the 48 persons for whom death certificates have been produced were ticked off on the Official List of Electors (OLE) as having voted.

There is already division amongst government-nominated and opposition-nominated commissioners with regard to what should be done about the claimed and observed irregularities.

The People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) has argued that every election will produce margins of error, and the ones discovered by the Coalition are minimal. However, the APNU+AFC is holding fast that there are “clearly-linked” patterns amongst the irregularities which invalidated votes cast for the party. It is also steadfast in its position that fraudulent votes ought not to be counted, and that GECOM has the responsibility to deliver credible results to the electorate.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-14-2020

…AG says CEO should not be ordered to compile report for declaration

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams said the irregularities, discrepancies and anomalies cited in the Observation Reports of the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, have tainted the General and Regional Elections, and as such the CEO should not be ordered to compile a report for the declaration of the results.

The Attorney General weighed in on the matter, hours after the Chief Elections Officer submitted his Report on the National Recount to the Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), and the Elections Commissioners.

The Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield, in his report to the Elections Commission, cited more said more than 200, 000 votes have been affected as a result of anomalies and allegations of voter impersonation. In addition to the alleged cases of persons voting in the place of the dead and persons who were out of the jurisdiction on Elections Day, there were well over 2,000 cases of missing Certificates of Employment, Oaths of Identity, Poll Books, Proxies, marked Lists of Electors, Folios, Counterfoils, unused ordinary and tendered ballots, spoiled and rejected ballot papers. Added to that, there were close to 5,000 alleged cases of voter impersonation. In each of the Observation Report tendered to the Elections Commission for the 10 Electoral District, Lowenfield indicated the elections that did not satisfy the criteria of impartiality, fairness and compliance with the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act.

The Attorney General said based on the evidence before the Commission, as contained in the Observation Reports and other supporting documents, the Elections Commission should request of the Chief Elections Officer to submit a report under Section 96 of the Representation of the Peoples Act Cap.1:03 pursuant to paragraph 14 of the said Order, on the ground that the irregularities, discrepancies and anomalies affected the integrity and credibility of the elections.

In support of his case, the Attorney General cited the case of Chilima anor v Mutharika Constitutional Reference No.1 of 2019, Malawi HC 431, in which, there were allegations of irregularities and anomalies. In that case, it was held that the irregularities and anomalies had been so widespread, systematic and grave that the integrity of the results had been seriously compromised. Further, that the results of the elections could not be trusted as a true reflection of the will of the voters as expressed through their votes cast during the May 21, 2019 elections.

“In this case the irregularities, anomalies and discrepancies were occasioned when the following occurred: – submitted, altered, varied and transmitted results in clear disregard of the process recorded in the tally sheet; accepted tally sheets from centers where the total number of votes cast exceeded the total number of registered voters; total number of used and unused ballot papers was lower than the ballot paper issued; the number of votes of candidates was not balancing with the total number of valid votes cast; Presiding Officers failed to prepare and provide summary of the final results Record of the polling process, among others,” the Attorney General pointed out.

He noted that the five member Bench imposed a duty on the Elections Commission to respond to requests by contesting parties to resolve irregularities, anomalies and discrepancies before declaring the results of the elections. “The Court held that a failure to do so can amount to bias on the part of the Commission and a gross and unjustifiable dereliction of duty under the Malawian Constitution (similar to article 162(1)(b) of the Guyana Constitution) to conduct impartial elections,” Williams further submitted.

The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), with support from the smaller opposing parties, has been up in arms against any move by the Elections Commission to investigate and or resolve irregularities that were unearthed during the National Recount of the ballots cast at the March 2 General and Regional Elections. On Saturday, it accused of Lowenfield of violating the Order, contending that he had no authority to pronounce on the irregularities.

“…Lowenfield arrogated unto himself the role of an investigator, Judge and executioner and made conclusive findings, in respect of the wild, reckless and baseless allegations made by APNU+AFC and rendered a judgement on them,” the PPP/C said in a statement.
The PPP/C called on GECOM to ignore the irregularities cited by Lowenfield, and declare the results of the elections based on the tabulated votes generated during the National Recount.

But the Attorney General said GECOM, under the Constitution and the Elections Law (Amendment) Act, has the authority to resolve irregularities, discrepancies and anomalies during any electoral process, and ought to resolve the anomalies before any declaration is made as he dismissed the contention of the Opposition.

“Jurisdiction is conferred on the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) by the last recital in Order No.60 of 2020 which derives its authority from article 162 (1) (b) and section 22 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act No.15 of 2000 to resolve irregularities, discrepancies and anomalies occurring in the elections process,” the Attorney General iterated.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-14-2020

…now says he was referring to political appointees

PEOPLE’S Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) member, Bishop Juan Edghill, has switched his position on his party’s intention to fire public servants who were appointed after the December 21, 2018 no-confidence motion.

Edghill, on Wednesday, was heard and seen on a video programme on Facebook saying that public servants whose contracts were recently renewed, and any appointments post December 21, 2018, the individuals will have sleepless nights, and will be issued notices by the PPP/C.

However, via a press statement issued on Friday, the Bishop said that his remarks are being peddled maliciously.

He said that the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) has lost these Elections and in an effort to bury the results of the recount process, “they are deliberating obfuscating issues and spreading propaganda.”
“I never attacked or threatened public servants. I maintain that public servants have nothing to worry about and nothing to fear from a PPP/C Government. Our professionals are valuable and important. However, the “political appointees” in the Ministries and Agencies who have recently renewed contracts should be put on notice that this is improper, unconstitutional and unlawful. I reiterate that it is wrong to tie a new Government down with clauses in new contracts to pay tax dollars to political operatives whose services would have concluded. In my comments, I was referring specifically to political appointees,” Edghill said in his statement.

It further outlined that in contrast, persons appointed by the Public Service Commission have security of tenure and function under different arrangements.

“So that is a separate matter. It is not surprising that the ones who are benefitting from these renewed contracts are peddling lies and misinformation daily. Public servants, who professionally execute their functions and mandate, will continue to do so freely. That is to say, public servants irrespective of race, age, gender, ethnicity, class and political affiliation, will work and benefit under a PPP/C Government. Our manifesto outlines betterment for all Guyanese, inclusive of and specifically for, Guyana’s public servants,” Edghill remarked.
The position of the Guyana Elections Commission on the results of the March 2 elections is not yet known to the public, but the PPP/C is operating on a self-proclaimed victory.
Meanwhile, the APNU+AFC maintains that only GECOM can pronounce on the outcome, and so the public is being urged to remain calm while GECOM performs its legal duty.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-14-2020

…does the recount affect this Article 177

By Khemraj Ramjattan

ARTICLE 177 of the Constitution makes provision for the election of a President of Guyana. The marginal note so indicates. The relevant provision, namely, article 177 (1) and (2) says the following:

(1) Any list of candidates for an election held pursuant to the provisions of article 60 (2) shall designate not more than one of those candidates as a Presidential candidate. An elector voting at such an election in favour of such a last shall be deemed to be voting in favour of the Presidential candidate named in the list.

(2) Where – (a) there is only one Presidential candidate at the election; or (b) there are two or more Presidential candidates, if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which a person is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list,
that Presidential candidate shall be deemed to be elected as President and shall be so declared by the Chairman of the Elections acting only in accordance with the advice of the Chief Election Officer, after such advice has been tendered to the Elections Commission at a duly summoned meeting.

This provision is making clear a number of things or phases, one of which is that the same vehicle which is utilized for election of Parliamentary seats in the National Assembly is the same vehicle which will allow for the election of the President.

Another thing it is saying is that when there are contesting candidates for the Presidency, as we have had in the March 2nd Elections, the candidate with the higher votes is deemed elected. “Deemed elected”, it must be said, is not the same as “elected”, although on the rarest of occasions this is to be contemplated. This Recount provides that occasion.
To reach that “elected” state even a further phase has to be completed, namely, that a declaration to this effect must be made by the Chairman of the Commission acting on the advice of the Chief Elections Officer which advice has to be submitted to the members of the Commission at a duly summoned meeting.

There are some points which ought to be noted here. The Chairman is required to act on the advice of the Chief Elections Officer after this advice is tendered at a duly summoned meeting of the Commission. The Chairman declares the President elected on the advice of the Chief Elections Officer. Not on the advice of the Commission!
Of course there is another phase we all know which the duly elected President must pass; and, that is the swearing in by the Chancellor (or a Judge appointed by him), in accordance with article 97.

For all intent and purpose, the “deemed President” is only completely morphed into being the “elected” President when the latter things happen in accordance with article 177. There is no automaticity from a “deemed President” to an “elected President”. This is made even clearer by a reading of article 91 of the Constitution which says: “The President shall be elected by the people in the manner prescribed by article 177.”
These two articles 91 and 177 dealing with the election of the President and especially the words….“elected by the people”…. here must be via a process that is fair and credible. Gaining the higher number of votes cast by a process that is not fair or credible could never have been within the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution. Nor could it be the character and quality intended by these words….“elected by the people”.
Further, “credible” certainly must be the dominant, underlying consideration in the mind of the members of the Elections Commission, especially the all important Chairman, when conducting this exercise of a general elections, to realise the “elected President” of a democratic country. The very wide powers given by the Constitution to the Elections Commission in articles 62 and 162, and the various derivative legislation thereunder, makes this presumptive.

It was obviously under these constitutional powers that Order No. 60 of 2020 was approved, thereby occasioning a Recount; and, to avoid what allegedly was a process which had questionable credibility. It was with the purpose of having a final ‘credible’ count of the March 2nd Elections, (see para 14 of Order as amended).

So this now is the submission. If it was felt necessary, by what happened outside the ballot boxes, to go inside them to ensure credibility before a declaration as to the Presidency, then to have found so much that was repulsive and repugnant inside them must be given similar consideration, before a declaration. If having given consideration to what was found inside, namely so much taint and tarnish, then such will only result in a declaration that is not credible or fair. That being so then no declaration ought to be made but a vitiation of the process. That does not require another Order. All the findings as adumbrated by the Statement of Recounts concerning anamolies, irregularities, and statutory violations, absent documents etc, meant that there was not that “impartiality, fairness and compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of any Act of Parliament” by the persons performing functions as contemplated in article 162 (1) (b).

Just assume for one moment, (and this is solely for emphasizing the point), that the boxes at the Recount had nothing in them, but the votes of the PPP, would article 177 apply? Could a Chairman proceed with a declaration of a President in that circumstance? No! He or she would have had to vitiate the entire process by announcing that a declaration cannot be made. Not credible would have been a euphemism in that scenario. And that being so, the only answer would have been: “As Chairman I cannot declare a President in these circumstances. As a consequence, there must be fresh elections…..”. Though this be an extreme example, it certainly makes the point that a declaration of a President by the Chairman of the Commission is not mandatory, nor necessarily have to follow at all, by any reading or construing of the prose of article 177. Absolutely not!

The example here means then that the Chairman is not tied by article 177 into automatically making a declaration of a President simply because there is evidence on a Recount that shows a contestant with the higher number. It does not follow. That would have only followed if the process resulting in that higher number count was credible.
It therefore means that by virtue of the broad functions and powers bestowed on it by the Constitution, GECOM’s Chair can call it as she sees it.

Further, it is submitted that no authority with powers to call a winner is without the power to not call a winner, and in that sense call off the race. That power is inherent. If the race is so badly conducted or corrupted, it could and should be called off. One ought not to go on to name a winner in those circumstances.

In an electoral race where so much is at stake and political stability is an overall consideration, how could it be fair or credible when so many statutory breaches and non-compliance of laws and regulations and Manuals and even worse, like the dead and non-residents voting, could a winner be declared?

It is my opinion that since no declaration was made of a President in accordance with article 177 prior to the Recount, (consequent upon a quest for credibility in the Elections of March 2nd 2020), then there is no reason why after the Recount if one is left with considerable credibility issues still, albeit of a new and different strand, why such a non-declaration of a President cannot be maintained. Article 177 perforce cannot compel in these circumstances GECOM’s Chairman to proceed with a declaration of a President in such tattered and tainted circumstances.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-14-2020

THIS past week has been especially eventful for our country as we continue to make sense of the aftermath of the March 2 election. Since that date, Guyana has seen the worst of our political culture as forces in the society seek to manufacture an outcome of the election that does not represent the democratic will of all Guyanese. We have also witnessed attempts by external forces to cross the line with regard to Guyana’s sovereignty in the name of preservation of electoral democracy.

The combination of those two developments amounts to placing our country under siege from within and without. The week began with the completion of the recount after five weeks of activity against the background of a Recount Order that was duly gazetted. Although the order signed by all the parties was pellucid that the objective of the exercise was to determine the credibility of the elections, the PPP ignored that objective and declared itself  winner of the elections based on a preliminary tabulation. That party then proceeded to make utterings, including threats to supporters of its rival, the APNU+AFC Coalition, as if it were the officially declared winner of the election.

This induced panic in the society as citizens sought to clarify the truth of the situation. What is worse is that sections of the local media repeated the PPP’s narratives in bold headlines which were then shared across the wider Caribbean and internationally. GECOM, the only body with the power to declare the winner of a general election was forced to put out a public statement assuring the Guyanese people that no winner was declared. The APNU+AFC coalition and other independent forces reiterated GECOM’s message.

One must ask the obvious question: why has the PPP been so eager to prematurely crown itself a winner of these elections? This publication has drawn the conclusion, that, that party along with its domestic and foreign allies are determined to hide the tonne of evidence that points in the direction of systematic fraud committed on and before elections day by agents of the PPP. It is also trying to influence the deliberations at GECOM and the report of the CARICOM observation team.

The APNU+AFC Coalition claims that it has unearthed almost 8,000 instances of anomalies and irregularities involving multiple aspects of the electoral machinery. It  has concluded that these infractions which affect as many as 257, 153 votes, representing  more than half of the votes found in the boxes. While the Coalition has been calling on GECOM to investigate these findings, the PPP has been either trying to deny their existence or to argue that they can only be used as evidence in an elections petition.

We are satisfied that GECOM, having agreed to a recount that went beyond a simple count of the votes in the boxes, is bound by its own gazetted order to give maximum weight to these findings before an official declaration. That it set itself the objective of determining the credibility of the elections within a legal framework, binds it to the findings of that exercise. The PPP’s attempts to sidestep this aspect of the process is an extension of the fraud it has been fingered in since March 2. Guyana, including the electoral contestants, must  await the report by GECCOM’s CEO and the subsequent deliberations by the commission before an official declaration.

When we thought that the PPP’s false declaration had taken the cake, St Vincent and the Grenadines Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves decided to jump into the fray. In a clear departure from accepted protocol regarding the internal affairs in CARICOM member-states, he proceeded to directly threaten Guyana that failure to declare a winner based on the tabulation of the recount would trigger action by CARICOM. While he did not specify what action would be taken, it is clear from his tone that he has chosen a side in the ongoing impasse.

Dr. Gonsalves’ threat is not in isolation. This publication has editorialised many times before on the naked attempt by foreign observers and the diplomatic community to become overly involved in the elections process. We feel that they have crossed the line to the point of direct interference in our affairs, which can only be seen as an attack on our sovereignty. Now Dr. Gonsalves has joined two former regional prime ministers in mimicking the representatives of the larger countries. But Dr Gonsalves has done something else. He may have wittingly or unwittingly been trying to influence the report of the CARICOM observation team which includes a Vincentian.

We endorse the pushback by the government of Guyana and the leadership of the APNU+AFC. There should be no place for such behaviour as exhibited by the prime minister. Guyana has never in its long association with its Caribbean neighbours engaged in  interference in their internal affairs. It is not out of place to demand the same respect for our sovereignty. To put it bluntly, Prime Minister Gonsalves has crossed the line. He is entitled to have his friends in Guyana, but he is not entitled to use his high CARICOM office to influence an election in Guyana in his friends’ favour. Like St. Vincent and the Grenadines, we cherish our independence and will always do what is correct and necessary to protect it. As a keeper of the flame of the Caribbean civilisation, Dr. Gonsalves knows better than his words exhibited this past week. We join the chorus in saying to the esteemed prime minister—stay out of Guyana’s business.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-14-2020

Dear Editor

THE critical question is whether GECOM can rely on data extrapolated from the ballot boxes where the statutory documents are missing altogether or in part?

1. The utility of the statutory documents is triggered by the circumstances captured by Sections 68-76 of the Representation of the People Act (RoPA) and more importantly, the closure of polls, Section 83. The statutory officers, whether presiding officer, polling clerk and/or returning officer, has certain obligations to perform in relation to these statutory documents. They range from ensuring that an entry is made in the poll book attesting to the fact that upon the first opening of the ballot box, there were no ballot papers or other papers therein (Section 68(a), to placing the different category of ballots into separate envelopes, Section 83(5),(6) to making up in separate packets the official list of electors or part thereof, notices of appointments to vote as proxies, copies of the lists of proxies, the poll book and other election documents.

2. The ballot box and the statutory documents are then delivered to the returning officer of the district in which the polling place is situated, Section 83(10) (c). Upon the delivery of these documents, the returning officer proceeds to ascertain the votes in accordance with the statement of polls, Section 84(1). In the absence of a counting agent requesting a recount, the declared results are forwarded to the chief elections officer for him to prepare his report. Importantly, and in this context, there is no need to examine the statutory documents, unless of course an election petition is filed post-elections.

3. It must be noted that it is that standard operating procedure (SOP) at GECOM for all the aforementioned documents with the exception of the poll book to be placed in the ballot box.
4. Where a counting agent requests a recount (limited or general) and it has concluded, the returning officer shall perform the obligations as captured by Section 89 of the RoPA. Significantly, it requires the returning officer to verify the ballot paper account by comparing same with, inter alia, the unused and spoiled ballot papers in his/her possession and the record of tendered votes contained in the poll book section 89(1)(b) . Notably, in the context of a counting agent requesting a recount, select statutory documents are chosen to enable verification. These documents are critical to establishing the accuracy of the recount and by extension, the credibility of the process. At this point, the returning officer is prohibited from opening the packets containing tendered ballot papers, the marked copies of the list of electors or part thereof, or the counterfoils of the used ballot papers section 89 (2). Easily discernable is the fact that these documents are supposed to be in the possession of the returning officer, but he may only make reference to a select few with a view to determining the credibility of the count.
5. The gazetted order provides for a recount that is outside  the framework of the Representation of the People Act,  though it retains some of the modalities of the Representation of the People Act  framework. This is because 10 lawful declarations have been made by the district returning officers and recounts have been rejected, aborted or held in abeyance. Fundamentally, it provides for a recount of the ballots casts in all the electoral districts, coupled with a reconciliation with a menu of statutory documents way beyond the select few identified by section 89(1)(b) . Inescapably, this extensive reconciliatory list ought to further give credence to the accuracy of the ballots extracted from the ballot boxes and enrich the overall credibility of the process.
6. It must be noted that the Order made under the Official Gazette number 60/2020 is what is considered as subsidiary legislation. Caribbean scholar and legal luminary Rose-Marie Belle Antoine in her book, Commonwealth Caribbean Law and Legal Systems at page 235 made it clear that subsidiary legislation is a source of law and it has legal force and authority. Further, the Full Court in Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo v. Ulita Moore and Others at paragraph 64 acknowledged GECOM’s authority to legislate.
7. It would follow that the absence of these statutory documents or where there is excess or missing ballots in a box, resulting in inability to balance that box suggests that there was non-compliance by the statutory officers with the provisions and/or SOPs of GECOM that mandate the performance of certain obligations in relation to the said documents and/or the electoral process of GECOM has been compromised. In effect, both instances cast a tremendous cloud over the veracity of the ballots cast.

8. In Holladar v Returning Officer, Chief Elections Officer, Guyana Elections Commission, Chief Justice George highlighted that a statutory office holder ought to perform                                                                                                                                          his or her duties in accordance with the law that governs their powers. Where there is non-compliance, the court can exercise its supervisory powers to direct that there be compliance with the law. It is patently clear that, at a minimum, there may have been non-compliance with the statutory provisions by the necessary office holders for the obligations that were to be performed. The non-compliance with these provisions carry ‘serious consequences’ in that where a recount is invoked, the returning officer will be unable to verify same. The intention of Parliament ought to have been to ensure that at the stage of a recount, the credibility of the ballots emanating therefrom can be cross-referenced with other electoral documents emanating from the respective polling station , so as to ensure that the outcome is a true reflection of the will of the Guyanese people. Understandably, and in the absence of these documents, the will of the Guyanese people cannot be logically accounted for by GECOM.

9. It would appear that the jurisdiction of the court can be invoked to vitiate the declaration of results that emanate from substantial non-compliance with provisions highlighted in paragraphs one and two. Instrumentally, the invocation of the court’s jurisdiction is not to challenge the results of the elections, but to ensure that the requirements of the statute are carried out. However, a distinction ought to be made between Holladar and the present circumstance. In Holladar, the court could have ordered compliance with the section because at the time in question, compliance was indeed possible. In the present circumstance, for compliance to be ordered would mean that one would need to return to polling day and ensure that the statutory officers comply with the respective provisions. Admittedly, this is an impossibility. This would require the beginning of the entire electoral process. Nevertheless, the absence of the documents gravely impairs the credibility of any result that may emanate from this still ongoing process (The case of Gladys Petrie makes reference to the term election being construed very widely). After all, GECOM is charged with delivery of ‘free, fair and credible’ results and must stay resolute in so doing. It would follow that where these documents cannot be found for reconciliation and scrutiny in compliance with the Order legislated by GECOM; and where there is excess or missing ballots, the data in relation to the corresponding ballot boxes would not escape the cloud that questions its accuracy and consequently will be unlawful for their failure to comply with the Order.
10. As a result, it is my respectful opinion that any advice tendered to GECOM by the chief elections officer in accordance with Article 177 of the Constitution with unverified and unreconciled votes will be unlawful for failure to comply with Order 60/2020.

Yours respectfully,
Darren P.W.Wade
Attorney-at-Law

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_6-14-2020