Dear Editor,
DEMOCRACY has won another battle but the struggle still wages on. A struggle the incumbent-sanctioned government seems to be enjoying on a daily basis. These unfortunate events have taken a massive toll on our nation’s identity and economy. We are now on the agenda for discussion in the international community conferences, not because of our vast wealth, but because of our political crisis and impending economic crisis. Our citizens are also affected mentally and economically. Day in, day out, a new person appears on the streets seeking assistance from passersby, and a new person is laid off from their job. The situation at this moment is an extremely depressing, frustrating and a disconsolate feeling to a majority of Guyana’s population. The APNU/AFC Coalition is to be solely blamed for the local and international outlook of Guyana. Their gross incompetence and mediocre approach to this entire election must come to an end, and their notorious leader, David A. Granger can see to this being done. Mr. Granger needs to come out of the shadows of his oppressors and put this nation and her people first. This selfish behaviour, as The New Movement sees it, will not aid the current political situation towards completion, but towards the further demise of the Coalition, this country and her people. Therefore, The New Movement reiterates its call that seems to have fallen on deaf ears and blind eyes for the Coalition to concede your defeat with dignity and bring an end to the misinformation and incompetent legal battles peddled under your administration.

I leave this quote by Alexander Pope with you sir, “He who tells a lie is not sensible of how great a risk he undertakes; for he must be forced to invent twenty more to maintain that one.” In this entire dilemma, the Chairwoman of GECOM stands at the centre, a woman of justice who has shown to be steadfast in her ways with the CEO, and has shown to be a woman of many chances. Madam Chair, we are of the view that once there is no stay of the judgment like that which was granted by the Court of Appeal in the David v. GECOM et al case, or an injunction stopping GECOM from acting like in the Order issued by the CCJ in the case of Jagdeo, Ali v David et al, GECOM can still proceed. Therefore, The New Movement calls on the Chairwoman of GECOM to convene a meeting with the commissioners with the sole agenda to carry out Article 161A (1) upon your rogue employee, the Chief Election Officer, Mr. Keith Lowenfield.

We ask that you seek out a new, impartial individual over the next few days, since we are of the opinion that the Deputy CEO has shown to be partisan as well. The citizens of this nation want to move on and move forward with their lives. The courts have summarised that these matters to be res judicata, meaning that matters that have been adjudicated by a competent court and therefore may not be pursued further by the same parties and further any other new parties. The recount figures are there to be solely used, and this proves the will of the people with a president elect. Let us not lose hope Guyana, and let us continue to be our brother’s and sister’s keeper. Keep the peace, for our democracy will be restored and our nation will rise to the heavens. To the youths of this nation and those in the Diaspora, be innovative and be creative in these times, don’t let this crisis dishearten you from our rich, beautiful home. To the elders, you’re young at heart and your experience is much needed in these times, lead by example and continue the good fight. God Bless Guyana.

Regards,
The New Movement

Source:  https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-22-2020

Dear Editor,

CHIEF Justice Roxanne George has been a beacon of fairness, maturity and professionalism whenever she has had to sit and hear matters relating to the almost five-month electoral process in Guyana. She’s heard it all, from ‘substantial compliance’ to ‘alternative positions’, but has remained unbent, and has delivered some astute, clear rulings on each case by applying the law and citing the rulings of higher courts and previous CJs. Madam Chief Justice George, a simple thank you and best wishes for your continued health, happiness and blessings are in order, as democratic Guyana owes you a debt that can possibly never be repaid otherwise.
Notwithstanding the professionalism displayed by our Honourable CJ, it is disappointing to note that in the same session that Chief Justice George delivered her ruling, lawyers representing the interests of the losing party, APNU+AFC, have already voiced their intention to appeal the matter. Now it looks as though our country will end up at the CCJ to be told essentially the same thing that has already been ruled on. Does no leader in APNU+AFC have any dignity left? Haven’t we wasted the time of our highest courts enough already for one election?

It would be nice to see APNU+AFC surprise me by pulling themselves together, congratulating Irfaan Ali, and allowing Guyana to navigate the troubling international times (COVID-19, economic challenges, oil price fluctuations) with a legitimate president at the helm, and allow parliament to begin its work again. Surely APNU+AFC would be able, as a viable force in Parliament, to hold the PPP to task, and together with the smaller parties which won a seat, represent the interests of the constituents who bravely voted for them. Perhaps not, hence the current zero-sum game being played in the courts, abusing our legal system and putting the country to shame.
However, I’m not holding my breath on this one. History’s pen continues to record all, and it is looking as though in the long-run, APNU+AFC will have no credibility left as a political entity. A shame that a once proud party has imploded so publicly and spectacularly because of a few selfish, unfair minds consumed by avarice and vanity. To my fellow citizens, regardless of which party you voted for, take heart and do not let the show bring your spirits down. Relief is in sight, and the forces of democracy will not let you down.

Sincerely,
Shazaam Ally
The Citizenship Initiative

Source:  https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-22-2020

..Dr. Hinds says High Court ruling in Elections case has left many questions

By Svetlana Marshall
POLITICAL Scientist, Dr. David Hinds, in supporting the move to appeal the High Court’s decision in the latest elections case, said the judgment of Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire failed to adequately address critical issues linked to the national recount and the constitutional and statutory roles and responsibilities of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh and the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield.
In her Monday, July 20 decision in the Misenga Jones case, the Chief Justice ruled that the Recount Order (Order 60) and by extension the national recount cannot be invalidated, and as such the data, generated through that process, must be used for the declaration of the results of the General and Regional Elections held last March. In support of her decision, Justice George-Wiltshire had relied on the judgment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in the case – Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo v Eslyn David and others.

But in an interview with Guyana Chronicle on Tuesday, Dr. Hinds said the judgment of the High Court left much to be desired. “As far as the legal proceeding is concerned, the ruling of the High Court [has] left a lot of matters unresolved,” he told this newspaper.

According to the Political Scientist, the High Court was given the golden opportunity to effectively address the constitutionality of the Recount Order, and its impact on the country’s electoral system when considered together with the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act and other Electoral Laws. It was explained that while the CCJ “touched” on the Recount Order, in an effort to determine whether or not the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to interpret Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution, and whether its interpretation of the Constitution was correct, Order 60 was never the subject of the case.

According to him, the Recount Order was never fully adjudicated upon prior to the filing of the Misenga Jones Case. For him, the Misenga Jones case presented the opportunity for the Court to determine whether Order No. 60, in facilitating the 33-day National Recount, had created a “new electoral regime” in conflict with the Representation of the People Act, and whether it clothed the Elections Commission with powers to determine the validity of the Elections in breach of Article 163 of the Constitution.

The CCJ, in its ruling, had stated that no order could be in tension with the Constitution. “The court also notes that an order issued by GECOM in any particular context can never determine how the Constitution is to be interpreted. It is a matter of elementary constitutional law that if ordinary legislation is in tension with the Constitution, then the Courts must give precedence to the words of the Constitution and not the other way around. With respect, the notion that Order 60 could either impact interpretation of the Constitution or create a new election regime at variance with the plain words of the Constitution is constitutionally unacceptable,” the CCJ had ruled.
Noting that the recount was not merely numerical, Dr. Hinds pointed to the fact that the recount, in keeping with the order, comprised the tabulation of votes but also the reconciliation of the ballots issued with the ballots cast, destroyed, spoiled and stamped. During the process, the authenticity of the ballots was also determined and the number of voters listed and those crossed out as having voted was also taken into consideration among other things. Dr. Hinds said clearly the recount encompassed quantitative and qualitative components, and one aspect cannot be validated while the other dismissed.

“We cannot talk about the results of the Recount Order without taking into consideration the qualitative aspect of the report. Because if one reads the recount order it was very clear that it was engaging not in a numerical recount but a recount to establish the credibility of the [elections] and there is a whole chapter that talks about the reconciliation of votes in the box with the statutory documents such as the counterfoils,” the Political Scientist said while expressing his disappointment that the court had not addressed both components of the recount.

Justice George-Wiltshire, in her ruling, had said that the CCJ endorsed the national recount. “…as determined by the CCJ, unless overturned by a court in an elections petition, the only data that could be used for the declaration of the results of the elections would have to be the recount results or data,” the Chief Justice ruled.
But the Political Scientist said the courts cannot be selective in their decisions, iterating that the recount must be treated as a whole. He posited that because the primary objective of the recount was to determine a “final credible count” all the data captured during the exercise must be taken into consideration.

“The Order was very, very clear that it set out to determine the credibility of the vote, and therefore any use of that data, has to be use of all the data. And I think the CCJ did not treat with that adequately, partly because that was not before the CCJ. The CCJ only touched the Recount Order in so far as it used it to overrule the decision of the Court of Appeal and in that sense the legality of the Recount Order was not substantially before the CCJ, so the CCJ just made little reference to it,” Dr. Hinds said.
In its ruling, the CCJ had said that issues such as voter impersonation as raised by the Campaign Manager of the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC), Joseph Harmon, and the irregularities cited by the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield must be addressed in an elections petition before the High Court as prescribed by Article 163 and the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act.

But while acknowledging the ruling of the CCJ, Dr. Hinds pointed out that in that very judgment indicated that the President and Members of the National Assembly could only be elected based on information provided by the Returning Officers in accordance with the Representation of the People Act.

That paragraph 37 of the CCJ judgment reads: “The Presidential Candidate on the list for which more votes have been cast than any other list is deemed to be elected as President, and the Chairman of GECOM must so declare. Both the allocation of seats in the National Assembly and the identification of the successful Presidential Candidate are determined on the sole basis of votes counted and information furnished by the Returning Officers under the Representation of the People Act.”
Dr. Hinds drew attention to the fact that the Returning Officers were not part of the National Recount, and concluded that the CCJ, implicitly invalidated the national recount and its Order.

“Although the CCJ did not explicitly invalidate the recount order, it did so implicitly. One can imply from what it did, that the recount Order was invalidated,” Dr. Hinds maintained, nothing withstanding judgement of the High Court that the CCJ had endorsed the recount.

However, he expressed the view that the CCJ’s just contradicted itself.

“If you read the CCJ’s ruling, you would get the impression that the ruling was written in parts and they did not reconcile the parts, and therefore what people are doing, they are going in the ruling and taking out parts of it to use to make their case but that is the CCJ’s fault because it did not reconcile the various parts,” he opined.
He maintained that the High Court had the opportunity to reconcile those tensions within the CCJ ruling but it did not, and on that basis, he said Jones’ appeal is more than justifiable.

“I also think that the Court did not adequately resolve, the tension between the authority of the Commission and the authority of the CEO,” Dr. Hinds said. The Chief Justice in her ruling had said that the CEO is subject to the directives of the Elections Commission.

Source:  https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-22-2020

… 23 instances cited where High Court erred in its judgement on the 2020 Elections

By Svetlana Marshall

ONE day after the High Court upheld the national ecount and simultaneously ruled out the possibility of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) relying on the March Declarations to declare the results of the General and Regional Elections, Misenga Jones – a Tucville, Georgetown voter – has moved to the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision.

Through her Attorney, Mayo Robertson, Jones filed a Notice of Appeal on Tuesday (July 21), in which she laid down 23 grounds on which the Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire erred in her judgment handed down in the High Court on Monday (July 20).

In dismissing the case filed by Jones, the Chief Justice indicated that the majority of the issues highlighted in the application were re judicata, having been addressed by both the Court of Appeal and the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Further, she ruled that the CCJ, in its July 8 judgement in the case – Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo v Eslyn David – endorsed the National Recount. “…as determined by the CCJ, unless overturned by a court in an election petition, the only data that could be used for the declaration of the results of the elections would have to be the recount results or data,” Justice George-Wiltshire said in her virtual judgment.

However, Jones, in her Notice of Appeal, said that the Chief Justice erred in her judgment, and it ought to be set aside or reversed.
In laying down the grounds for the appeal, Robertson, on behalf of his client, told the Appellate Court that the Chief Justice erred in law when she ruled that the issue of the constitutionality of Section 22 of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act was res judicata.

It was Section 22 of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act that the Elections Commissioned used together with Article 162 of the Constitution to bring the Recount Order (Order No. 60) into effect. Jones together with the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield and the Attorney General, Basil Williams had argued that Section 22 was unconstitutional on the basis that it conferred law-making powers on GECOM – a non-legislative body – in contravention with Article 170 of the Constitution. It was also argued that the Recount Order led to the establishment of a new electoral regime in breach not only of the Constitution but also the Representation of the People Act.
But Justice George-Wiltshire while relying on the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Ulita Moore Case ruled that the legality of Section 22 is a matter to be frontally examined by the court at a full hearing via an elections petition upon the completion of the electoral process. Additionally, she ruled that the matter was res judicata but Robertson told the Appellate Court that the High Court’s decisions were bad in law on the grounds that the Chief Justice misconstrued its judgment in the Ulita Moore v the Guyana Elections Commission case.

Further, Jones wants the Appellate Court to rule that the Chief Justice’s decision that the Chairman of GECOM, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh and or the commission did not act outside of their constitutional and statutory powers was also bad in law. Following the CCJ’s decision in the Ali and Jagdeo Case, the Chairman of GECOM, on July 9, instructed the Chief Elections Officer, to compile an Elections Report in accordance with Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act and Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution but with the use of data generated during the national recount. However, the CEO had expressed concerns that the National Recount was not done in full compliance with the Representation of the People Act, which stipulates that the Elections Report must be compiled using information from the Returning Officers. Lowenfield, in reverting to the March Declarations, had relied on paragraph 37 of the written judgment of the CCJ.

That paragraph reads: “The Presidential Candidate on the list for which more votes have been cast than any other list is deemed to be elected as President, and the Chairman of GECOM must so declare. Both the allocation of seats in the National Assembly and the identification of the successful Presidential Candidate are determined on the sole basis of votes counted and information furnished by the Returning Officers under the Representation of the People Act.”

Jones together with the CEO and the Attorney General had brought attention to the fact that the Returning Officers had not participated in the May-June National Recount, and as such, they had argued that GECOM ought to declare the results of the elections based on the declarations made by the Returning Officers in the 10 Electoral District in accordance with the Representation of the People Act.

But the Chief Justice said the interpretation of the CCJ’s judgment put forward by Jones, the CEO and the Attorney General was “hopelessly flawed.” “The CCJ judgment lends to the ineluctable conclusion that the recount votes are ex facie valid,” the Chief Justice said but Jones is contending that the decisions of the Chief Justice were flawed.

Jones, in laying down her grounds, argued that the Chair of GECOM acted outside of her constitutional powers, and that the Chief Justice failed to properly construe the terms and provisions of Order No. 60. Such action, Jones told the Appellate Court resulted in a flawed judgment that the validity of the Order was res judicata.
Further, the Tucville voter told the Appellate Court that the High Court failed to consider the “undisputed” affidavit evidence tendered by her and the Chief Elections Officer. Those evidence, she posited, addressed the important question of the Returning Officers’ involvement in the National Recount, and in addition to the changes made by the Elections Commission in determining the validity of votes cast at the Elections. Jones said that the Chief Justice had also disregarded the evidence tendered by People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo.

“The Honourable Chief Justice (ag) erred in law when she failed to consider affidavit evidence of the seventh named Respondent, Bharrat Jagdeo, which would have allowed her to see what the Order for recount had its genesis in an unconstitutional attempt to challenge the lawfulness in the conduct of an election,” Jones said, through her lawyer.

It was also submitted to the Court of Appeal that “the Honourable Chief Justice (ag) erred in law when she failed to determined that the process and or mechanism for determination of a final credible count under Order 60 of 2020 was predicated on and was inconsistent with the constitutional powers of the Guyana Elections Commission and in excess of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act as it required the application of the reconciliation process set out in Order 60 of 2020.”
The Chief Justice, in upholding the National Recount, ruled that the March Declarations made by the Returning Officers are no longer useful but this too was rejected by Jones.

“The Honourable Chief Justice (ag) erred in law when she held that the Declarations of the Returning Officers made pursuant to Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act had been overtaken by events, were no longer useful and could not be resurrected,” Jones, through her lawyer said.

The case brought against the Guyana Elections Commission, the Chairman of GECOM, the Chief Elections Officer, the Attorney General and others will be heard today (July 22) in the Court of Appeal at 15:00hrs. The other respondents in the case are Shazam Ally of The Citizenship Initiative; Abedin Kindy Ali of Change Guyana, Bharrat Jagdeo and Irfaan Ali of the PPP/C, Dr. Mark France from A New and United Guyana, Leader of the Liberty and Justice Party, Lenox Shuman, Daniel Josh Kanhai of The New Movement and Leader of the United Republican Party Vishnu Bandhu.

Source:  https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-22-2020

Dear Editor,
THIS letter represents my understanding of both the African and Indian masses position on the current election crisis in the country. I have chosen to do so in what I consider as a reader-friendly manner. The points are not listed in any form of preference, importance, or chronological order, and it is not my intention to put any political weight on any point. They also do not represent the full extent of the views from both quarters. I try to present them as I have encountered them over time, and with my own random recall.

THE AFRICAN VIEW: Losing the elections will result in PPP/C and Indian domination as experienced during the 23 years of PPP/C rule, economic, political and social marginalization, and a Coalition victory is the only way to prevent domination. Granger and the APNU+AFC played fair on Election Day, and were not involved in rigging. The PPP/C on Election Day organised massive rigging, and got fraudulent votes in the ballot boxes, and the PPP/C numbers are fraudulent. Mingo’s Region 4 tabulations were an attempt to undo PPP/C rigging; the PPP/C first began the rigging on Election Day; if the PPP/C did not rig, the APNU+AFC would have had more votes. GECOM and CARICOM betrayed the recount/verification process, stabbing Granger and the Coalition in the back by only addressing tabulations and not verification. The array of forces, internal and external against the Coalition is unjustified and one-sided. The ABCE countries, OAS, Commonwealth, UN are doing what the US demands; this situation is as a result of the strong and powerful bullying the weak and powerless. This is an injustice which they, the African masses, and the Coalition must resist; see the PPP/C return to office, as the return of State- sponsored killings of Africans; the return to systematic economic apartheid; the PPP/C’s return to office will lead to African security forces oppressing Africans in the interest of PPP/C and white people. The present role of the US and its allies is that of regime change, like the Carter intervention in 1992; once the PPP/C gets back into office, the US and the ABCE countries will do as they did post- 1992 and allow the PPP/C to do as it pleases. Indians only want to make money; they don’t join the army to defend the country; Africans are the only group that is committed to the defence of the country, and this is not recognised and compensated. This service deserves a special entitlement. The lessons of nationalisation in the 70s and 80s where 80% of the economy was State-owned property owned collectively by all Guyanese, when de nationalisation took place, the majority of the State assets went to non-Africans; we did not have the money. Africans are more open to power-sharing than Indians; given our weak economic standing, foreign business coming to Guyana have little or no African business enterprises to enter into joint ventures. The oil-and-gas industry and wealth under the PPP/C will worsen the economic disparities between the races; this leaves them with no credible alternative but to fight for a reset of the social contract. Opposed to sanctions; see it as bullyism by the US and its allies (White people), and are prepared to live with the consequences.

THE INDIAN VIEW: A PPP/C victory will enhance their economic and social domination of the country; the continuation of the APNU+AFC rule will put limitations on their economic, social and political aspirations. They feel that the Coalition is hostile to their interests; want the continuation of winner-take-all governance system, since it favours their numbers; feel historically that only the PNC and Africans rig elections; don’t believe that the PPP/C ever rigged an election; that the elections were won by the PPP/C fairly; that the Region Four tabulations were electoral fraud by the APNU+AFC; see the recount as confirmation that the PPP/C won the elections; don’t recognise the evidence of fraud that was exposed in the recount process; at the start of the election process, viewed the GECOM Chair as pro-Coalition; now see her as pro–PPP/C; see GECOM and CARICOM insistence on the use of the recount tabulations for declaring a winner of the elections as correct, and in keeping with the agreement between the President and the Opposition Leader; welcomes the US and ABCE countries position on the elections; are energised by the local and international support for the PPP/C; see the resorting to the courts by the PPP/C as correct, and the resorting to the courts by the APNU+AFC as wrong; believe that a PPP/C government will reopen closed sugar estates; feel that the Granger administration was closing down the underground economy, cutting off wealth from Indians; see the African presence in the Army and security forces as a danger to their community; consider themselves to be better managers of the economy; a PPP/C government is the best option to control the oil wealth; that the Africans don’t like business, and that is responsible for their poor standing in the economy. African claims for historic justice is not their concern; feel that the PPP/C will protect them from Africans; support sanctions against the government, even to the point of ignoring the possible effects such sanctions will have on them; blame the APNU+AFC for the emergence of the Chinese in the commercial sector as a government policy against their interests, and feel that the large presence of Trinidad/Indian businesses emerging in the country is to their advantage in the oil-and-gas sectors.

putting together these observations, I am conscious that as an African that I am more aware of the thinking of Africans, and am confident that I adequately represent their views on the elections. However, I can’t claim the same for my observations of the Indian view, since I am outside of that community, and my representations (of the Indian view) in this regard may be inadequate. I hope that Indian comrades and others inside and outside of the WPA may add to our understanding of the Indian view on the elections.

Regards,
Tacuma Ogunseye

Source:  https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-22-2020

…GECOM Chair, CEO agree to stay electoral process should appeal be filed

By Svetlana Marshall

DISSATISFIED with the High Court’s decision to uphold the National Recount, lawyers for Tucville Voter Misenga Jones have vowed to appeal the decision no later than today.

In issuing her judgment in the case, Misenga Jones v the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and others on Monday, Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire ruled that the National Recount cannot be considered to be invalidated, nor can the declarations made in March be resurrected at this stage of the electoral process. Further, she ruled that Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield must comply with the directives of the Elections Commission.

Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, while thanking the Chief Justice for her ruling, signaled Jones’ intention to appeal the decision of the High Court. “The Judgement is a disappointment. Can I say we are surprised? No! Important issues were not answered or considered,” Forde told the Guyana Chronicle at the conclusion of the ruling. Forde and the team of lawyers led by Trinidad Senior Counsel John Jeremie will be filing an appeal against the High Court’s decision at the level of the Court of Appeal. That application is expected to be filed today. “We are confident that the decision will be set aside on appeal,” Forde told this newspaper.

Attorney-General Basil Williams endorsed the oral application made by Forde, noting, too, that it has been the established practice of the GECOM Chair that once the issues relative to the electoral process are engaging the attention of the Court, the Elections Commission will halt the process pending the hearing and determination of the case.

Interjecting, Attorney-at-Law Davindra Kissoon, who is representing the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo and Presidential Candidate Irfaan Ali, said the issue of a “stay” would be better canvassed upon the filing of an appeal. “Without an appeal being before the Court, it is very difficult for any party to engage in any discussion concerning a stay,” Kissoon told the Court. He had appeared in association with Attorney-at-Law Anil Nandlall and Trinidad Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes.

NOT ASKING FOR A STAY
But the Chief Justice clarified that Forde had not asked for a stay but rather undertakings to be given by the CEO and the Chair of the Elections Commission. In response to the request, Attorney-at-Law Kim Kyte-Thomas, who appeared for the Chair of GECOM, offered a commitment to await the decision of the Appeal Court, once the appeal is filed today.

“In respect to the undertaking, I believe so far in all these matters my client has been conducting herself in a particular manner. If indeed the appeal will be filed by tomorrow… my client can undertake to continue to extend that same courtesy,” Kyte-Thomas said.

However, she, too, acknowledged that at the time, the appeal had not been filed, however, she gave her word that if by today the appeal is filed, Justice Singh will extend the same courtesy. The Attorney, however, in drawing the court’s attention to the fact that the elections were held since March, 2020, close to five months ago, said that the electoral process cannot continue to be prolonged. “We have to be fair to the nation,” she posited. Senior Counsel Neil Boston, who appeared on behalf of Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield adopted the position taken by Kyte-Thomas.

Meanwhile, Campaign Manager of the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC), Joseph Harmon expressed disappointment at the decision of the Court. “It is disappointing that in its ruling today, in the case of Misenga Jones v GECOM et al, the Court has side-stepped the issue of fraudulent ballots in the tabulated votes at the Recount. We will continue to insist that Fraudulent Recount Votes cannot determine the will of the Guyanese People; that only valid votes can produce such a result,” Harmon said in a brief statement on Monday evening. According to him, the Coalition’s lawyers will engage at the next level of the Court System to ensure the country’s Constitution is respected and adhered to by all. Notably, Harmon was not a party in the case brought by Jones. “We remain steadfast in making our case for valid votes only,” he posited.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_21_2020

Dear Editor,

THE news outfit iNEWS, which continuously spun what I said and juxtaposed my comments to those of Commissioner Gunraj, during the Recount process, has suddenly found refuge in what I reportedly said during that period. I am now one of their sources in their effort to justify the use of the recount numerics as the basis for the declaration of the 2020 elections results. They headlined their news item, “PNC`s Alexander always insisted GECOM would use recount figures for declaration.” Their need to quote me exposes their spin and deceit. Here is what their quote says that I said: “In my considered opinion, all things being equal I don`t see us doing that (using the 10 declarations)… I would say that if the recount is completed that doesn`t appear, to me, to be a likelihood…” (author`s emphasis). Even with their truncating of the quote as evidenced by the ellipses (…) in the quote, “all things being equal” stands out. It was always my contention that the recount had to take into consideration the observation reports rather than the mere numerics (tabulations). All things did not turn out to be equal. The observations were disregarded, in the recount. What they have also not reported, positively, is that subsequent to the recount and GECOM`s refusal to factor in the observation reports into the determination of the credible count, as propagated in the Order, I have publicly called for a non-declaration as opposed to a declaration using any of the tabulations, all of which, be it Mingo`s or any other, are patently corrupted as the “Recount” revealed.

It must be an act of desperation for iNEWS to rely on the villain to prop up its case. But it is intellectually dishonest and deceitful to spin what I said in the search for a credible view. Today I am credible, tomorrow I will once again be the villain as I was yesterday. What a web they weave. There are those who have taken up the posture of the Almighty.

Yours faithfully

Vincent Alexander
GECOM Commissioner

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_21_2020

By Lisa Hamilton 

THE People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) bas welcomed the ruling of the High Court that the result.of the 2020 General and Regional Elections must be based on the national recount data while the APNU+AFC bas expressed it s disappointment. 

In an address to the public on Monday afternoon, PPP/C presidential can­didate lrfaan Ali said that his party is pleased with the court’s ruling, but displeased that the AP­NU+AFC plans to appeal. He said that the appeal will be another “delay tactic” in preventing a conclusion to the elections. 

“We in the People’s Progressive Party/Civic, we welcome the ruling and we ‘re saddened that although the ruling was clear  associates of the APNU+AFC are continuing their delay tactics in denying our county the stability that it so badly requires, as we seek to tackle the issue of COVID-19, the serious economic circumstances that we ‘re facing and the financial difficulty not only at the central government level, but also in the private sector,” Ali stated. 

The PPP/C presidential candidate said that the international community has already threatened to take action on those working to “delay the elections” and soon the sanctions will become stronger and all of Guyana will be affected. He said: “We have called upon the government to act selflessly and not selfishly. Act in the national interest, act in the interest of the citizens. In 2015, after elections, we the PPP sought to be a disciplined opposition, we sought to be an opposition that would continue to struggle and represent the rights and interest of people, an opposition that would continue to be committed to the task of national development and nation-building .. we cannot overstate the call for this government to act in a responsible manner.” 

Meanwhile, in his initial response to the court’s ruling, APNU+AFC Campaign Manager Joseph Harmon said that the APNU+AFC finds it disappointing that the court has ruled in favour of the use of the recount data which his party put forward is in contradiction to the constitution. 

He said that the AP­NU+AFC will take matters to the next level as it believes that it must continue the fight for the citizens of the country who demand an election based only on valid votes. “It is disappointing that in its ruling today. in the case of Misenga Jones v GEC0M et al, the court has side stepped the issue of fraudulent ballots in the 1abulated votes at the recount. We will continue to insist that fraudulent recount votes cannot determine the will of the Guyanese people; only valid votes can produce such a re­sult,” Harmon said, adding: 

“Our lawyers will en­gage at the next level of the court system to ensure that our constitution is respected and adhered to by all. We re­main steadfast in making our case for valid votes only.” 

The Guyana Elections Commission {GEC0M) has committed to wait­ing on the filing of an ap­peal on the matter no later than today, July 21, 2020. 

Also responding to the court’s ruling, The Citizen ship Initiative (TCJ) stat­ed: “Chief Justice Roxane George continues to execute her judgments with careful detail to jurisprudence and application of the law. Her understanding of the issues and the context against which Guyana continues to be placed in is exceptional. Her profes­sional ism inspires faith in the judicial system and is a good example for others to emulate for sound and clear guidance on matters arising for judicial review .. TCJ remains concerned that despite such a clear and concise ruling, there is yet to be another court matter. TCJ therefore calls on all parties to abide by the rulings and not waste any more of the court’s time.” 

Leader of the Liberty and Justice Party (LJP) Lennox Shuman also expressed his pleasure with the court’s ruling, but lobbied for the international community to place a “tier 2” sanction on the APNU+AFC adminis­tration for its pursuit of the matter to a higher court. 

“The court bas ruled on the o umbers so you can’t ask those questions anymore, they are already there. So, let’s get on with the. show,” be said.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_21_2020

– for allegedly threatening to kill GECOM Chair, her entire household

A LINDEN man who allegedly threatened to kill Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, was on Monday charged with the offence, but granted bail in the sum of $500,000.

Appearing before Magistrate Wanda Fortune at the Linden Magistrate’s Court, via Zoom, was Ryan Williams of Silvercity, Linden, Region 10 (Upper Demerara-Berbice).
He was charged, under the Cybercrime Act 2018, with using a computer system to compel a person, but through his lawyer,
Attorney-at-law Stanley Moore, he pleaded not guilty of committing the offence.

It is alleged that on July 13, 2020 at 17:58hrs, Williams, using a fake Facebook account with the fake name, “Raheem Raahman”, threatened to kill Justice Singh and her entire household.

The post reads, “If you Claudette Singh think you will declare fraudulent votes so that the PPP will win, well, think again, bcuz you and everybody in ur house will f**king dead.”

According to Linden’s Police Commander, following an investigation spearheaded by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Williams was arrested by Linden Police at his Silvercity home on July 15, 2020.

Besides being granted bail, Williams was required to lodge his passport as a precondition to obtaining his freedom.
He is also required to report to the Crime Officer-in-charge of Region 10 every Friday, and is to make his second court appearance on August 3, 2020.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_21_2020

…says March declarations no longer useful
…CEO must comply with directives of GECOM

By Svetlana Marshall
CHIEF Justice (ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire, said that the results of the General and Regional Elections must be declared based on the data generated during the National Recount, effectively ruling out the notion that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) can revert to the declarations made by the 10 Returning Officers in March.

“As concluded, given the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Caribbean Court of Justice, the recount cannot be considered to be invalidated, at least not at this point in time. In this context, the Section 84 (1) declarations can no longer be considered useful,” the Chief Justice said as she handed down her judgment virtually via a live broadcast on Youtube.

Justice George-Wiltshire later added that: “…as determined by the CCJ, unless overturned by a Court in an election petition, the only data that could be used for the declaration of the results of the elections would have to be the recount results or data.”

The applicant – Tucville voter, Missenga Jones had sought a total of 28 declarations and orders from the High Court – compelling the Elections Commission to declare the results of the General and Regional Elections based on the March declarations, as advised by the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, in his latest Elections Report. Jones, however, through her attorneys, vowed to appeal the decision of the High Court.

Through a battery of lawyers led by Trinidad and Tobago Senior Counsel, John Jeremie, Jones had argued that Order No. 60, which triggered the National Recount, was unconstitutional and on that basis, the data generated during that process could not have been relied upon for a declaration of the results of the Elections. Further, her attorneys together with the lawyers that represented the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield; and the Attorney General Basil Williams had argued that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), in its July 8 judgement in the case – Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo v Eslyn David and others – had invalidated the Recount Order on the grounds that it created “a new electoral regime,” and that the results ought to be made based on the declarations made by the Returning Officers in accordance with the Representation of the People Act.

Paragraph 37 of the CCJ judgment states: “The Presidential Candidate on the list for which more votes have been cast than any other list is deemed to be elected as President, and the Chairman of GECOM must so declare. Both the allocation of seats in the National Assembly and the identification of the successful Presidential Candidate are determined on the sole basis of votes counted and information furnished by Returning Officers under the Representation of the People Act.”
But, the Chief Justice, in endorsing the submissions made on behalf of the Chairman of GECOM, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh by Attorney-at-Law Kim Kyte-Thomas, ruled that the CCJ did not invalidate Order No. 60 but rather endorsed the National Recount.

“This, the interpretation of the CCJ decision by the applicant, the CEO and the AG is hopelessly flawed. The CCJ judgement lends to the ineluctable conclusion that the recount votes are ex facie valid,” Justice George-Wiltshire ruled.

It was explained that the reference to a “new electoral regime” made by the CCJ was done in response to the decision of Justice Brassington Reynolds in the Court of Appeal that Order No. 60 had established a new elections regime with separate elections for members of the National Assembly on one hand and, an election of the person deemed to be president, on the other. Justice George-Wiltshire clarified that the apex court had ruled that Justice Reynolds’ line of reasoning was flawed.
Emphasising that paragraph 37 of the CCJ’s judgment cannot be read in isolation, Justice George-Wiltshire pointed out that in paragraphs 38 and 39 of its judgment, the apex court, in highlighting the procedures of the recount exercise, noted that the objective was to allow for “an open, transparent and accountable recount of all the votes cast” at the March 2 Elections.

“The CCJ re-emphasised that Order No. 60 did not and could not create a new election regime. This was a clear reference to its finding as regards the decision of Reynolds. The Court did not, in explaining how any tension between the Constitution and subsidiary legislation should be treated, negate or nullify Order No. 60 either expressedly or impliedly,” the Chief Justice ruled.

Against that background, Justice George-Wiltshire ruled that Jones’ contention that Justice Singh’s letters to the Chief Elections Officer are invalid, has no merit. In three letters dated June 16th, July 9th and July 13th, the GECOM Chair had instructed that the Elections Report be compiled in accordance with the Certificates of Recount generated during the National Recount conducted in May-June.

MARCH DECLARATIONS OF NO USE
In turning her attention to the validity of the declarations made by the Returning Officers in the 10 Electoral Districts, the Chief Justice said the electoral process has long gone past that stage. “My conclusion as regards the interpretation of the CCJ decision regarding Order No. 60, necessarily mean that the answer to this issue is that the declarations of the Returning Officers as made pursuant to Section 84 [of the Representation of the People Act] have been overtaken by events whereby GECOM, in its wisdom, considered that there were difficulties that had to be addressed in order to produce what is termed in Order 60 as a credible count,” Justice George-Wiltshire said.

Recount data valid

The Chief Elections Officer, through his attorney – Senior Counsel Neil Boston – had argued that it was his constitutional mandate to advice the Elections Commission in accordance with Representation of the People Act but the Chief Justice said it is the Chairperson and GECOM that have constitutional mandates. According to her, the CEO is simply a functionary of GECOM.

“Section 18, which is repeated in Order No. 60, merely confirms this and for the avoidance of doubt – that the CEO cannot act on his own,” she said while ruling that Section 18 of the Election Law (Amendment) Act is not unconstitutional or in conflict with Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution. “If it is the considered opinion of the CEO that in face of Order No. 60, he can produce a report based on Section 84 declarations, then one would expect that he must be guided accordingly by GECOM. This, the evidence discloses the Chairperson has sought to do via the letters transmitted to the CEO. Thus, as determined by the CCJ, unless overturned by a Court in an election petition, the only data that could be used for the declaration of the results of the elections would have to be the recount results or data,” the Chief Justice said.
Justice George-Wiltshire added: “For the reasons outlined, the ten declarations cannot be resurrected at this point in time. In this regard, there can no longer be an impasse between the Chairperson and the CEO as to the effect of Article 177 (2) (b) and Section 96 [of the Representation of the People Act]. For the avoidance of doubt as stated in Section 18, the CEO is subject to the direction and control of the Commission.”

Relying further on the judgements of the CCJ and also the Court of Appeal, the Chief Justice made it clear that issues regarding irregularities during the electoral process must come via an Elections Petition in accordance with Article 163 of the Constitution, which gives the High Court exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate over such matters. According to the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act, Election Petitions must be filed within 28 days of the declaration of the results of an election.

JURISDICTION AND RES JUDICATA
However, before addressing the meat of the matter, the Chief Justice, from the onset, had assumed jurisdiction to hear the case. The respondents in particular the Chairman of GECOM and the added respondents including the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo and Presidential Candidate, Irfaan Ali, had argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case brought by Jones. But Justice George-Wiltshire, in assuming jurisdiction, said that there was a distinction to be drawn as regards enquiring into the functions of the Chair of GECOM and the Elections Commission, which are restricted by Section 140 of the Representation of the People Act, and interpreting the constitutionality of Section 22 of the Election Law (Amendment) Act, Order No 60 and Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution to determine the lawfulness of their actions. The Jurisdiction, she posited, was a narrow one, aimed at treating with the legal framework employed during the electoral process.

But while the Chief Justice ruled that she had jurisdiction to entertain the application brought by Jones, she ruled that the majority of the issues highlighted in the application is “res judicata” – meaning there were adjudicated by a competent court and could not be pursued further by the same or any other party with similar intention. The constitutionality of Section 22 of the Election Law (Amendment) Act, as raised by the applicant, was one such issue. “Apart from Section 22, which was specifically cited, there are a number of reliefs claimed in this application which were claimed in or are mirrored in the claims in [Ulita] Moore, and which I consider cannot be re-litigated,” the Chief Justice said as she cited a number of examples.

Dissatisfied with the decision of Justice George-Wiltshire, Jones, through her lawyers indicated that she will appeal the ruling.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_21_2020