…says approach taken during recount inconsistent with election laws

AHEAD of today’s hearing of the Misenga Jones case challenging the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM’s) decision to declare the results of the General and Elections using data from the National Recount, the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield told the Court that the approach taken during 33-day National Recount at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC) was inconsistent with the Representation of the People Act, as he stood by his Election Report compiled on the basis of declarations made by Returning Officers in the 10 Electoral Districts.

In his Affidavit in Answer in the case – Misenga Jones v the Guyana Elections Commission and others – Lowenfield explained that the valid votes documented on the Certificates of Recount are not the same as determined by the Presiding Officers on March 2, 2020 due to various directions given during the Election Commission supervised National Recount.

He posited that the approach taken during the National Recount, which was triggered by Order No. 60, was inconsistent with the procedures outlined in the Representation of the People Act and the official manual for Presiding Officers and other Polling Day Officials (revised 2019).

In support of his position, the Chief Elections Officer provided the High Court with approximately five examples in the form of exhibits in which the Elections Commission, during the National Recount, validated votes in contradiction with the Representation of the People Act.

Additionally, Lowenfield told the High Court that the ‘Basket of Issues’ created during the recount exercise was amended to accept ballots with smudges or erasures as long as the voter intention appeared to be clear. However, he said, in some instances, ballots were invalidated though some Elections Commissioners argued that the voters’ intentions were clear. “…overall, there was inconsistent application of the ‘new rule’ depending on arguments proffered or the officials involved,” the CEO said.
To add weight to his position, Lowenfield furnished the Court with a table depicting the number of ballots for which the status assigned by the Presiding Officers in the presence of the Counting Agents and persons entitled to be there on March 2, 2020, was redefined during the National Recount as captured in the Observation Reports.
According to that table, in Region One (Barima-Waini), nine rejected ballots were validated while three valid ballots were changed to rejected during the National Recount. Over in Region Two (Pomeroon-Supenaam), 12 rejected ballots were changed to valid while one valid ballot was changed to rejected; in Region Three (Essequibo Islands – West Demerara), 37 rejected ballots were changed to valid and 32 valid ballots changed to rejected; in Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica), 305 rejected ballots were changed to valid and 192 valid ballots changed to rejected.

Over in Region Five (Mahaica-Berbice), a total of 48 rejected ballots were changed to valid and 20 valid ballots changed to rejected; in Region Six (East Berbice- Corentyne) 82 rejected ballots changed to valid and 27 valid ballots changed to rejected; in Region Seven (Cuyuni-Mazaruni), 30 rejected ballots changed to valid and eight valid ballots changed to rejected; in Region Eight (Potaro-Siparuni) 26 rejected ballots changed to valid and two valid ballots changed to rejected; in Region Nine (Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo) two rejected ballots changed to valid and three valid ballots changed to rejected; and in Region 10, 21 rejected ballots changed to valid and 31 valid ballots were changed to rejected. Overall, 572 rejected ballots were changed to valid and 319 valid ballots were rejected.

“The Commission’s instructions changed from one day to the next depending on the questions that arose during the recount. Further, there was no strict adherence to the procedure for determining valid votes as described in Section 84 (6) of the Representation of the People Act Cap 1:03. For instance, as shown in the ‘Basket of Issues,’ on the 6th day of May, 2020, the Commission redefined a valid vote to mean a ballot cast where the voter’s intention [was clear],” the Chief Elections Officer explained. He pointed to the fact that the no Returning Officer or District Counting Agents were appointed to conduct or attend the National Recount.

Lowenfield told the Court it was the Chairperson of GECOM, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, who had committed to a recount but at the level of the Elections Commission. “…The Chairperson, Claudette Singh, on the 13th day of March, 2020, appeared before the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature in contempt proceedings and indicated to the Court that the tabulation was in progress and should there be any discrepancies in the Statements of Poll as declared by the Returning Officer and those held by political parties, the discrepancy should be noted and at the end of the process, if they could not be addressed, she will endeavor to facilitate a recount at the level of the Commission,” he recalled. He further noted that as a result of complaints by political parties, Order No. 60 was brought into effect on May 4, 2020 to remove difficulties connected with the application of the Representation of the People Act. Referencing to the recent judgment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Lowenfield said the Court in pronouncing on Order 60 did not compel the Elections Commission to use the recount data in the Elections Report.

“The Caribbean Court of Justice did not say the results of the recount are to form the basis of the Chief Elections Officer’s report rather the Caribbean Court of Justice states ‘it is for GECOM to ensure that the elections results are swiftly declared in accordance with the Laws of Guyana,’” he pointed out.

According to him, the Elections Report tendered on June 11, 2020 is consistent with Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act. That report, however, did not find favour with the Chairperson of GECOM, who had ordered that it be replaced with one that reflects the National Recount data. Lowenfield is being represented by Senior Counsel Neil Boston.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_17_2020

Dear Editor,
The APNU+AFC Coalition Government is not in breach of any international laws or treaties nor has it engaged in any human rights violations. This Government has meticulously followed and continues to follow the constitution and laws of Guyana. The APNU+AFC Coalition Government is not in any contravention with any of the Laws of Guyana. Therefore, it is befuddling and surprising that the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mr. Mike Pompeo, can announce to the world that the US intends to impose visa restrictions on individuals undermining democracy in Guyana, while urging President David A. Granger to step aside and respect the results of the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections.

Clearly, it appears that Secretary Pompeo was speaking from an uninformed position, as the results of the General and Regional Elections of March 2, 2020 have not yet been lawfully declared by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). Until a lawful declaration is made by GECOM, the APNU+AFC Coalition Government will remain the democratic Government in place in Guyana.

Guyana gained independence 54 years ago and became an independent nation with its own laws and sovereignty. The Constitution of Guyana is the supreme Law of the land. The Constitution of Guyana outlines in clear and simple language the role GECOM must play as the sole body in Guyana with the authority and responsibility to conduct elections in Guyana. GECOM has not yet lawfully declared the winner of Elections 2020, which means that, until that declaration has been made in keeping with the Constitution of Guyana, President David A. Granger and the APNU+AFC Coalition Government will remain in office.
President Granger has long stated that he and the APNU+AFC Coalition Government will abide by the Constitution, once GECOM makes a lawful and legal declaration of the March 2, 2020 Election Results.

As a citizen of Guyana, I take umbrage at the threats emanating from the US Secretary of State of visa restrictions for persons they deem as undermining democracy in Guyana, particularly when these threats are unfounded and baseless. Guyana remains a democratic country with its own rules and laws by which the Government governs itself. Perhaps Secretary Pompeo will do well to focus on the real pressing issues affecting the US, especially in this era of the COVID-19 global pandemic, and leave Guyana to sort out its own issues within the confines of the Laws of Guyana.

Yours faithfully,
Concerned Guyanese Citizen’

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_17_2020

as partnership marks 9th Anniversary

IN just five years, the David Granger-led Administration successfully removed Guyana from the Money Laundering Blacklist and elevated the country’s rating in its fight against Human Traf6dting even as it makes a case against Venezuela before tbt World Court in defence of the country’s territorial integrity, but these unprecedented developments are now under threat, Joseph Harmon said .as be marked the A Partner ship for National Unity’s (APNU’s) ninth anniversary. 

Harmon, the General Secretary of the A Partner­ship for National Unity, in an address to the nation on Thursday, said the APNU together with the Alliance For Change (AFC) stands committed to further advance development in Guyana but the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) has gone great lengths to thwart the will of the Guyanese people. 

Based on the Election Reports submitted by the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield to the Guyana Elections Commission, the APNU+AFC won the General and Regional Elections held last March, but the PPP/C, according to Hannon, has placed obstacles in the way of the Chairman of the Elections Commission, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, in declaring David Granger as President. 

He said for 23 years, the people of Guyana suffered at the hands of the PPP/C, and such a party should not be allowed lO re-enter government, especially on basis of fraudulent votes. A national recount conducted in May­June showed a win for the PPP/C but it also unearthed massive electoral fraud particularly in PPP/C stronghold areas. 

Harmon said in those 23 years, the then opposition did not stand idly by as the PPP/C wrecked the country, noting that the battle was often about construction versus destruction; cooperation versus confrontation and the good Iife versus poverty and communal disintegration. 

Cognisant of the need to unite, he recalled that on July 15, 20 II five political parties  the Guyana Action Party (GAP), the Justice For All Party (JFAP), the National Front Alliance (NFA), the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) and the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) came together to launch A Partnership for Na­tional Unity (APNU). 

“It was clear then as it is clear now that the racial-based politics and policies of the past has no place in the future, and Guyana with all of its resources would not reach its true potential and embrace modernity if the old ways of doing business was allowed to continue. The Partnership (APNU) gave the nation a chance to hit the reset button, and the leaders, a new pallet on which to promote policies and programmes designed to advance the interest of all the people of Guyana,” the APNU General Secretary said. 

The partnership, he said, is proud of its service to the nation in nine short years. “APNU has broken down barriers of social prejudice; smashed the barriers of bigotry and broke through with new ideas and a new vision for Guyana’s future. APNU is the future. We have chosen hope over despair and faith over fear,” he added. 

But the A PNU created an even greater impact in 2015 when it coalesced with the AFC, and successfully defeated the PPP/C regime. 

“We entered government in 2015 as a Coalition and over those five years we have restored hope to the people of Guyana. We have successfully ended 23 years of ‘wreckage’ carried out by the PPP/C. Block by block, we have rebuilt this nation from the rubble and restored national pride. We have gone from being viewed as a narcotic state to being removed from the antimony laundering blacklist,” he detailed. 

Harmon added: “We have aggressively tackled corruption, which according to one newspaper editorial during the Jagdeo era was on an industrial scale. We have brought back the dignity of human life and placed a strong premium on Guyanese life; extrajudicial. killings are now a thing of the past. We have cleaned up the tattered legacy which Jagdeo and the PPP/C left us.” Additionally, it was under the APNU+AFC Administration, the country’s rating in the global fight against Human Trafficking significantly improved. During the period 2013-2015, Guyana was on the US Tier Two watch-list; in 2016 it moved to Tier Two and since 2017 it has main­tained a Tier One status. 

Emphasis was also placed on human and infrastructural development. “We have addressed, among other things, education, public infrastructure, public security, public health, and social protection and people are now proud to say ‘I am Guyanese, he posited. 

Key among the achievements was the APNU+AFC Administration’s successful push to have the Guyana-Venezuela Border Con­troversy deferred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by the United Nations (UN) Secretary General for a final and binding judgment that the 1899 Arbitral A ward is valid. 

“Over these five (5) years no foreign government has had the need to accuse us of corruption or mismanagement in public office,” Hannon said but noted that even as the APNU marked its Ninth Anniversary on Wednesday, “dark forces” threatening to pull the coalition apart. 

“APN U believes in a community working together for a common cause. Our approach is rooted in the belief that each citizen performs best in a strong and safe community of people who share common val­ues,” Harmon said in his address to the country.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_17_2020

…GECOM undertakes to await High Court judgment before making any decision on the 2020 elections

By Svetlana Marshall

CONFRONTED by another legal action, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has agreed to await the judgment of the High Court before proceeding with any decision that would impact the declaration of the results of the General and Regional Elections held last March.
Chairman of the Elections Commission, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, through her Attorney Kim Kyte-Thomas, made the commitment on Wednesday (July 15) during a virtual Case Management Conference (CMC) in the High Court for the case – Misenga Jones v The Guyana Elections Commission and others, which was presided over by Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire.

In this latest court action, Misenga Jones – a registered voter from Tucville, Georgetown – is challenging the Elections Commission’s decision to invalidate the Declarations made by the Returning Officers in the country’s 10 Electoral Districts, and to use as a substitute the Certificates of Recount as the basis for the declaration of the elections results.

The undertaking was offered in response to a request by the Attorney General Basil, through his Legal Counsel Maxwell Edwards, that an order be granted to maintain the status quo with respect to the electoral process being executed by the Elections Commission. In other words, Edwards sought to restrain the Chairman of Elections Commission from proceeding with any declaration or decision on the 2020 General and Regional Elections. A similar request was made by Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel John Jeremie on behalf of Jones – the applicant.

Edwards’ request, however, did not sit well with Attorney-at-Law Timothy Jonas and Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel, Douglas Mendes, who appeared on behalf of The New Movement (TNM) and the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) – added respondents in the case.
“The Attorney General is the respondent in these proceedings, he is not the applicant; and I have said this on a number of occasions that we expect the Attorney General to be neutral in these matters and not to take a side,” Mendes told the Court.

In response, Williams reminded the High Court that the Attorney General is the custodial of the Constitution of Guyana – the supreme law of the land. “The Attorney General didn’t apply to enter into this case, the Attorney General has been made a party to this matter,” he posited while noting that it is an elementary rule in the judicial system for the Attorney General to be added as a respondent in cases involving the Constitution.

Notwithstanding the concerns of Mendes and Jonas, Kyte-Thomas told the Court that the Chairman of the Elections Commission will await the judgement of the Court before proceeding to bring the electoral process to an end.

“Your Honour, as has been my client’s position in relation to these matters, once these matters are pending, I believe she has conducted herself, throughout all of these proceedings, in a certain manner; and I believe your Honour a similar approach would be taken in respect to this matter,” Kyte-Thomas told the court. Even as the court met at 10:00hrs, the Elections Commission was scheduled to meet. That meeting, however, was subsequently cancelled.
The Elections Commission was reportedly scheduled to deliberate on the “failure” of the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield, to submit an Elections Report in compliance with the instructions of the Chairman of GECOM.

Justice Singh, on Monday last, had scrapped the March 2020 declarations made by the 10 Returning Officers, in an attempt to force the hands of the Chief Elections Officer to submit an Elections Report based on the votes tabulated during the National Recount.

She had warned that failure to submit an Elections Report reflective of the Certificates of Recount by 14:00hrs on Tuesday (July 14) would result in the Chief Elections Officer being substituted by the Deputy Chief Elections Officer (DCEO), Roxanne Myers. That report was not submitted on Tuesday, and it was expected that the matter would have come up for discussion on Wednesday.

The commission, however, will now follow the completion of the High Court matter. To date, the Chief Elections Officer has submitted a total of three Elections Report with the first and the last compiled in accordance with the Representation of the People Act and Article 177 (2) (B) of the Constitution.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-16-2020

–Dr. Hinds warns that sanctions could have damaging effects on the country

By Svetlana Marshall

Political Scientist, Dr. David Hinds said though the decision of the United States (US) Government to sanction Guyana comes as no surprise, it can be viewed as an attempt to influence the outcome of the latest elections case filed in the High Court, which challenges the decision of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to declare the results of the General and Regional Elections based on data generated during the National Recount.

“The move was not unexpected. The Western countries have long made clear their preference for one contestant in the election. They have since then used their considerable influence including the threat of sanctions to force that outcome. That desired outcome has been thwarted by the prolonged court battles. With the beginning of a new round of court battles, the recent move by the US and the other Western interests, runs the risk of being viewed as intending to influence the outcome of the court cases,” Dr. Hinds told Guyana Chronicle on Wednesday.

Even as the Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire was presiding over a Case Management Conference in a case brought by registered voter Misenga Jones against the Elections Commission and others, US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo announced that visa restrictions will be placed on individuals the US believes are “complicit in undermining democracy” in Guyana. The announcement was made in an attempt to force the David Granger Administration out of Office notwithstanding the fact that results of the General and Regional Elections has not been declared by GECOM to date.

Article 92 of the Constitution of Guyana states that: “a person assuming the office of the President in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution shall, unless his office sooner become vacant under Article 178, continue in office until the person elected to the office of the President at the next election held under Article 91 assumes office.”

Dr. Hinds said resort to the Court by Guyanese who participated in the March Elections ought not be viewed as an attempt to undermine democracy in Guyana, as he brought attention to the fact that since March, 2020 the electoral process as be the subject of court actions filed by both the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) and the ruling A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC).

“It is difficult to describe what has transpired since March 2 as “undermining democracy” since both major contestants have resorted to the court to argue the legal and constitutional merit of their respective cases. There is nothing undemocratic about Judicial Review. As far as GECOM officials are concerned, they have also been guided by the outcome of the court cases,” the Political Scientist told this newspaper. He said the “relatively extreme” action by the US and other Western countries threatening additional sanctions are aimed at something larger than the mere election.

Questioned whether the restriction would have significant impact on the country, Dr. Hinds responded in the affirmative, explaining that for a small country like Guyana it is not an insignificant development. The rippling effect, he posited, could be far reaching.

“Guyana has been there before. And if that history is anything to go by, the consequences could be grave,” the Political Scientist said as he turned back the pages of history.

“When in 1953 the British landed troops in Guyana to defend democracy, the effect was the split of the nationalist movement and the consolidation of ethnic politics which continues to blithe Guyana to this day. Second, when the US and Britain intervened in the early 1960s to again protect and promote democracy, it chose one party over the other. The consequence: a three-year ethnic Civil War and almost three decades of authoritarian rule,” Dr. Hinds pointed out.

But the Political Scientist said notwithstanding the impositions, there is no reason for President David Granger to concede, as he pointed to the fact that the Elections Commission, chaired by Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, has not declared the results of the Elections. “If the revocation of the visas is to get Mr Granger to concede defeat then it may have missed the mark. What is he going to concede? There is no lawful declared result? If anything, the action will likely make the coalition look like the victim of external intervention. That would then likely incense their supporters,” Dr. Hinds reasoned.

Instead of attempting to force President Granger out of Office, he submitted that the ABCE Countries should put pressure on the leaders of both the APNU+AFC and PPP/C to negotiate a just and reasonable settlement to a political impasse in the interest of all political sides. “Any partisan outcome may lead to developments that could consume all of Guyana,” he warned.

When asked what advice he would give the people of Guyana in light of the recent developments, Dr. Hinds said there is not much advice to offer. “The matter has been taken out of their hands. It is now in the hands of forces outside of their grasp. They are fast becoming onlookers as their fate is being determined,” he told Guyana Chronicle.

Meanwhile, in an interview with another news outlet, APNU+AFC Executive Member Aubrey Norton opined that many Guyanese would prefer to have their US visas revoked than to live under a People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Administration.

“The People’s Progressive Party extra judicially killed many Guyanese; there can be no worse sanction in this country than living under a PPP influenced and informed by Bharrat Jagdeo…The United States must know that the Bharrat Jagdeo regime transformed Guyana into a narco state; they must know that they (the PPP) refused to do a money laundering act because they were supportive of money laundering. The reports must have shown the level of trafficking in people that occurred under the People’s Progressive Party,” Norton said.

Norton, who is also a Political Scientist, said there appears to be a collusion to put “a criminal cabal” back into power, but the APNU+AFC will remain focus. He said the 33-day National Recount, which was conducted at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre unearthed massive irregularities and cases of voter impersonation – dead and migrant voters, particularly in PPP/C stronghold areas.

The Political Scientist said while the APNU+AFC does not believe that the revocation of visas is a step in the right direction, its primary interest is protecting the rights of all Guyanese. “We do not believe that putting visa restriction on us is right but it is their right, it is their visa. Our commitment is to Guyana not a visa to the United States of America. We have 83,000 square miles that we can travel, work and development. As for me, I am comfortable in my dear land of Guyana,” Norton said. He said the APNU+AFC has always demonstrated a willingness to put Guyana first, while pointing to the fact that in 2019 three Government Ministers relinquished their foreign citizenship in their quest to serve Guyana. Among them was APNU+AFC Executive Joseph Harmon, who relinquished his US citizenship. APNU+AFC, he iterated, will continue to put the interest of the people of Guyana first.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-16-2020

Dear Editor 

IN a situation that inflicted blows of indecency, our understanding of democracy and human rights, one of our elders in 1953 stated, and I quote, “this confounded nonsense must stop.” 

This morning, I listened to case management discussions that took place in the high Court and this statement came to mind. 

I am a simple man, and there is no need for me to venture into intricacies and technicalities which exist as members of the legal profession seek to advance a case for their respective clients. 

In every system, the vital ingredient to ensure the wholesomeness and man­ifestation of our laws, our constitution and the smooth running of our society, is the manner in which those persons placed in authority discharge their responsibilities. 

If such persons are consumed by greed, prejudice and an inability or failure to properly and faithfully do their work in accordance with laws, regulations and even time- honoured traditions, we are in serious trouble. 

I believe like the rest of Guyana, we looked forward to a settlement of the 2020 elections during the first days of this week. 

After the declaration by the chief elections officer (CEO) a fortnight ago, there were grumbling and rambling in exercising their right, two of our leaders sought the in­tervention by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). 

Many of us, including reputable attorneys, felt the CCJ could not intervene, since our Appeal Court was considered the final arbitrator in matters related to elections. 

Nevertheless, the CCJ made a judgment and a pronouncement. 

Some of us were perplexed, since we felt that the CCJ had exceeded its mandate, but as a disciplined nation and particularly the government side felt compelled to accept the ruling of the CCJ. 

On the other hand, those who invited the CCJ seemed to have a strange myopia and are telling their supporters only part of the CCJ’s judgement and ignoring the written 

judgement, which in essence disregarded the recount vote, with all the conditions at­tached to the agreement, signed by Messrs. Jagdeo and Granger. 

This is sad, since history has shown that massive damage has always been the result when persons place in positions of leadership peddle halt truths. 

But let us get back to the gut issue. 

The chief elections officer was requested to produce a report on the 2020 elections to determine the winner. 

After difficulties arose as a result of his initial declarations, the CEO was again requested to produce a report to identify the winner. 

Because of intervening events the CEO sought the guidance of the GECOM chairperson. This was not forthcoming. The CEO acting as a professional should prepared and presented his report to GECOM via its chairperson. 

The next logical step was for the chairperson to present that report and make arrangements so that the winner could be announced and the head of that list sworn in as President. The law is crystal clear. The chairperson can act only, and I wish to repeat only on the advice given by the CEO. 

Instead of doing only right and proper things, the chairperson issues unaccept­able directions to the CEO to use the results of the recount process. 

The chairperson’s letter made no reference to the number of anomalies and apparent fraudulent transactions uncovered during the tedium of the recount.

It may not surprise any one if the more effective thing to be used at this stage may be assistance of the medical profession (psychiat­ric et al), to bring some sanity to the state. 

Guyanese are fed up and tired of this stressful tug-o­war. 

Our laws and constitution are unan1biguous. 

If you are unhappy with the CEO·s proposal, then after a President is sworn in, those concerned elements in society will have access to the courts by way of an election petition. 

For me, end of story. 

One wonders whether there is a larger plot afoot to destabilise a government and to dislodge a President that has scrupulously respected the constitution and our laws. Recent history in Lat­in American, Africa and parts of Asia has witnessed how the Cold War and other circumstances were used capriciously to destabilise sovereign states and as I said elsewhere, to engineer the three Cs, Corruption, Coups and Confusion. 

Today, we also note the statement by Mr. Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State, announcing sanctions against officials of the government. 

The Granger administration has always expressed re­spect for the Government and people of the United States. I always made it clear, that I regard the US as a useful ally and friend. 

It is rather mysterious such strong statements should purportedly come from a high US official. 

This government has never even commented on US elections and stayed clear of commenting and allegations of meddling by external forces which took President Trump to the White house. 

It is after the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the 1812-1815 Anglo-American war, the Jim Crow laws, the Mason Dickson line, the 1863 civil war and the epic struggle of the 20th century civil rights movement that within the US administration, there are remnants of a philosophy, which believe that the Phkes of President Granger and members of the coalition government are no more than folks whose proper place is in the slave quarters in the US and elsewhere. 

But what is troubling, is that the propaganda blitz seemed geared to install a regime that has never been believers or supporters of the American system and political leadership and seems to either ignore or perhaps for­get the many anti-US stances of the present opposition. 

We can give many examples, but to be reminded of the vitriolic address by a then PPP government minister at the US independence anniversary in 2014, which coincided with the farewell of the US Ambassador. 

At that function, the PPP minister launched a verbal assault against the US Ambassador and his government. 

The irony is that the main body of the address which earned the chagrin of the PPP was the PPP hierarchy accusing the US Government of interfering in the internal affairs of the Guyana Government. 

Those of us who were present were so shocked, we felt that the following day we would have seen an apology from the PPP government, but instead, the head of the Presidential Secretariat de scribed the harsh remarks as a ‘feral blast.’ 

In contrast, the Granger-Ied government in dignified diplomatic language expressed surprise and reminded Mr. Pompeo that the coalition has in no way interfered with the work of GECOM, but more importantly, the process to declare a winner of the 2020 elections for whatever reason is incomplete. 

ln essence, Mr. Pompeo’s statement is at best precipitous and based on misinformation. 

The present government, since it took office in 2015, cooperated with the US Government to tame the narco trade which flourished under the PPP Government. 

lt’s the American Government which captured Shaeed Roger Khan and took him to tl1e US to face the jus­tice system. 

They overflew Guyana, knowing fully well that the then government would have protected and given Roger Khan and his ilk sanctuary as they did for many years. 

Mr. Pompeo should know it is the same PPP administration that sought to use a dis graced police officer Bennard Kerik to take charge of the Guyana Police Force. 

Thanks to the vigilance of the US administration, this gentleman like others are now behind bars in the USA. 

lt is this government that reversed the PPP’s stance of non-cooperation with the United States in security matters. 

I recommend to those within and. beyond our bor­ders to digest the philosoph­ical underpinnings contained in the literary gem titled, “The Challenge of Democra­cy” written by Janda, Berry and Goldman published in 1987. 

This was a review of the American system of gover­nance. 

It seems to me that congratulations are in order to the PPP, Cambridge Analytica and the Mercury outfit for doing an excellent job at propaganda, making Adolph litter’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945) seem rather pedestrian. 

Be reminded that the vast majority of Guyanese at home and abroad with passion cling to the words found in selected lines of the Song of the Republic “Her children pledge each faithful hour to guard Guyana’s lands and the second stanza states, “Unyielding in our quest for peace like ancient heroes brave, to strive and strive and never cease. With strength beyond the slave.” 

All we ask is for the rule of law, mutual respect and above all, unity.

Regards

Hamilton Green

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-16-2020

THE Private Sector Commission (PSC) and the Guyana Manufacturing and Services Association (GMSA) have called for an “end to the ongoing political crisis and a transition to new government” in Guyana.

In separate releases on Wednesday, the PSC stated that while recognising that “minor administrative difficulties” did occur during the national recount, it believes the process was nonetheless “efficiently conducted and authentic”.

It stated that these sentiments were shared by the CARICOM Scrutinising Team and international observers who found the recount results to be “valid and entirely credible”.

As such, it urged: “The Private Sector Commission, in all of these circumstances, has no hesitation in demanding of GECOM, the immediate acceptance of the results of the recount and that GECOM proceed to a declaration reflecting those results of the General and Regional Elections without any further delay.”

Meanwhile, the GMSA said that despite the commitments to respect the results of the recount process, attempts continue to thwart the declaration of a winner.

“The political impasse, the absence of a functional government, the COVID-19 pandemic and the lack of a coherent and comprehensive response, have made it difficult for businesses to operate. As a result, many have closed, resulting in losses of jobs and income for Guyanese. A continuation of this current situation will have disastrous consequences on the business community and the economy,” the GMSA stated. The association called for a swift conclusion to the political impasse and the declaration of the results based on the recount process.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-16-2020

… PPPIC among six respondents added

By Svetlana Marshall 

ORAL arguments in the country’s latest elections case will be be.an! on Friday (.July 17), Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire announced, during a Case Management Conference (CMC) broadcast live on YouTube for the 6rst time in the Court’s history in Guyana. 

The arguments in the High Court case – Misenga Jones v The Guyana Elections Commission and others – will be heard visually from 14:00hrs in light of the Emergency Measures instituted to suppress the spread of the deadly Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). 

Jones is seeking a total of 27 declarations and orders with the primary aim of compelling the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to declare the results of the General and Regional Elec­tions in accordance with the Declarations made by the IO Returning Officers in mid-March as advised by the Chief Elections Officer, Keith lowenfield. Ultimately, Jones, a registered voter from Tourville, Georgetown, wants the Presidential Candidate to be deemed elected, in keeping with those decla­rations and the advice of the Chief Elections Officer and not on the basis of the data generated during the National Recount. 

Justice George-Wiltshire, in presiding over the Case Management Conference on Wednesday, said that, among the primary issues in the case is whether the Recount Order – Order No. 60 – is valid and can be used as the legal basis to declare the results of the General and Regional Elec­tions, based on the National Recount. Importantly as well is the question of whether or not the declaration’s made by the Returning Officers in the IO Electoral Districts in accordance with the Representation of the People Act can be set aside. Further, the issues of jurisdiction and the constitutionality of Section 22 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act are among matters expected to be addressed during the oral argw11ents. 

Jones is represented by a battery of lawyers led by Trinidad and Tobago’s Senior Counsel, John Jeremie and Guyanese Attorney-at-Law, Mayo Robertson. 

RESPONDENTS 

Aside from the Elections Commission, the other named respondents in the case are the Chairn1an of the Guyana Elections Commission, Jus­tice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh; the Chief Election Officer, Keith Lowenfield; and the Attorney-General, Basil Wil­liams. 

On Wednesday, Legal Counsel Kim Kyte-Thomas appeared on behalf of the Chairman of GECOM, while the Chief Elections Officer was represented by Senior Counsel Neil Boston. The Attorney General appeared in person in association with Attorney-at-Law Maxwell Edwards. The Guyana Elections Commission was unrepresented. 

Further, representatives from seven political parties – the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), A New and United Guyana (ANUG), The New Movement (TNM), the Liberty and Justice Party (LJP), Citizenship Initiative, Change Guyana, and the United Republican Party (URP) – were added as respondents in the case. 

The PPP/C’s General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo and Presidential Candidate, Irfaan Ali are being represented by Attorneys-at-Law Ani! Nand­lall and Davindra Kissoon and Trinidad’s Senior Coun­sel Douglas Mendes. 

Attorneys-at-Law Kashir Khan and Mohamed Khan appeared on behalf of the Citizenship Initiative and Change Guyana; while Legal Counsel, Kamal Ramkarran, appeared on behalf of Dr. Mark France from A New and United Guyana. Further, Senior Counsel Hari Ramkarran, known as Ralph Ramkarran, is representing the Leader of the Liberty and Justice Party, Lenox Shuman; while Attorney-at-Law Timothy Jonas appeared on behalf of Executive Member of The New Movement, Josh Kanhai. Legal Counsel, Sanjeev Datadin, appeared for the Leader of the United Republican Party, Dr. Vishnu Bandhu. 

Though Jeremie did not object to the applications, he expressed concern that the legal proceedings could be drawn out. “I have not seen the applications. I am not sure what they add or what they might add; we seek no relief against any of these persons. This is a dispute in respect of the exercise of certain powers of GECOM, and while I can accept that perhaps one of the others may wish to join, if you have I 0 parties seeking to be joined, the proceedings are likely to be drawn out,” he reasoned. 

He added: “And your Honour has to balance the interest of an efficient and expeditious use of the court’s time with the interest of 10, 12 persons … being joined.” 

In response, Justice George-Wiltshire said it would be difficult to decide who to choose, and as such, “in the interest of justice and fairness,” the representatives of the various political parties were added to the case. 

SUBMISSIONS 

The applicant – through her attorney – was given until 23:00hrs on Wednesday (July 15, 2020) to make her submissions, while the respondents have until 22:00hrs today (Thursday, July 16) to make their submissions. The applicant, if so desire, has, until 11 :O0hrs on Friday, July 17 to file a reply. Oral submissions will begin on Friday (July 17) at 14:00hrs. 

CRUX OF THE MATTER Through her application, Jones, among other things, is seeking a declaration that Justice Singh failed to act in accordance with the advice of the Chief Elections Officer as mandated by Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution of Guyana, and, in effect, would have failed to declare the Presidential Candidate deemed to be elected as Pres­ident in accordance \\1th that advice. 

Lowenfield’s July 11 Elections Report showed a win for the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) coalition, which meant that President David Granger is in Iine to be elected to office for a second term, but that report has not gained the support of the GECOM Chair and the PPP/C-nominated Commis­sioners. 

Jones told the Court that only the Declarations made by the Returning Officers in the IO Electoral Districts are legal, and as such the High Court should confine the Chief Elections Officer, and by extension the Elections Commission to those declara­tions as stipulated in Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act. 

In defending her Application, Jones, through her lawyer, told the Court that while the first Declaration made by Region Four Returning Officer, Claimant Mingo, on March 5, 2020 was invalidated by the High Court on March 11, 2020, his second declaration made on March 13, 2020 was never invalidated by the Court. 

However, she noted that, on March 17, 2020, the President and the Leader of the Opposition agreed to a National Recount as a result of the intervention of the then Chainman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). The Courts later noted that there could not have been a CARICOM-supervised recount, and in keeping 1th that April decision, GECOM initiated a National Recount on May 6, 2020, using Order No. 60 as its legal cover. 

But approximately one month after that recount pro­cess came to an end, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), in its July 8 judgment in the case Bharrat Jagdeo and lrfaan Ali v Eslyn David and others, stated that Order No. 60 could not create a new election regime. 

“The Court further de­clared that validity means, and could only mean, those votes that ex facie are valid. Determination of such valid­ity is a transparent exercise conducted in the presence of, inter alia, the duly appoint­ed candidates and counting agents of contested parties,” Jones pointed out. 

She added: “After votes were duly cast in the General and Regional Elections of 2020, votes were tabulat­ed, and spoiled and rejected ballots were removed in the presence of counting agents and representatives of the political parties by Returning Officers, as required by Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act, and a re­turn in writing was issued by each of the ten ( I 0) Returning Officers, in accordance with Section 89(1)(f) of The Rep­resentation of the People Act. Based on returns received from the Returning Officers of the ten ( I 0) Electoral Districts, the Chief Elections Officer calculated the total number of valid votes, and prepared a report as required by Section 96 of the Repre­sentation of the People Act.” 

The CEO’s Election Report, .Jones noted, was submitted to the Chair of GECOM on March 13, 2020, but was placed in abeyance by the Commission amid complaints against Mingo. Jones however reminded that at no time did the Court ever invalidate Mingo’s second declaration, or any of the other nine declarations made by the Returning Officers.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-16-2020

Dear Editor,
I AM respectfully writing this open letter to the President of the United States of America His Excellency Donald Trump. President Trump, Isaiah 1:18 says ‘Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool’, my request to you is to come and let us reason together.

On Wednesday 15 July, 2020, I read in the press that the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced restrictions on individuals undermining democracy in Guyana. The Secretary of State stated, “Today, I am announcing visa restrictions on individuals responsible for or complicit in undermining democracy in Guyana. Immediate family members of such persons may also be subject to restrictions. The Granger Government must respect the result of democratic elections and step aside.”
President Trump, as a citizen of Guyana who has worked hard and honestly to contribute towards the growth and development of my country and its people, as well as uphold democracy and the rule of law, I wish to state that I respectfully disagree with the decision of the secretary of state and I think that it is an unfair position. This move by the US Government will only accelerate the racial divide and ethnic issues in Guyana. What Guyana needs at this point, after 70 years of ethno-political problems which have led to social and economic exclusion among the two major ethnic groups, Afro-Guyanese, and Indo-Guyanese, is not a declaration but rather a solution.
Most Guyanese know that both the APNU+AFC and the PPP/C were involved in malpractices in the March 2, 2020 elections; as such, it is unfair for the US government to conclude that the APNU+AFC is undermining democracy even though the PPP/C committed similar malpractices and in some instances, maybe worst. The difference, however, is that the PPP/C did not commit the acts in front of the cameras and observers.

President Trump, I believe that this is an injustice being done to the people of Guyana, at least some of the people of Guyana. I do not think that the seriousness of the long-term implications of this situation to Guyana and Guyanese are fully understood by your government. The talk in the street in Guyana is, why is it that the international community is so insistent on a change of administration in Guyana while at the same time are not recognising the wrongs done by the PPP/C and is apparently not even listening to the cries of the APNU+AFC about the irregularities which were committed by the PPP/C? How can one party be undermining democracy and the other party committed the same act and they are not undermining democracy?

The other question that is being asked is, while President Granger is being painted to the world as this President that is undermining democracy in Guyana, the US Government and the international community are adamant about the PPP/C presidential candidate, Mr. Irfaan Ali being sworn in as President of Guyana, despite the fact that Mr. Ali has 19 charges of fraud being processed in the courts of Guyana. Additionally, there are serious questions about Mr. Ali’s academic qualifications. The Canadian Government did not grant Mr. Ali a visa, presumably as a result of the 19 charges of fraud.

On the part of Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, the Leader of the Opposition, the list is long as to the allegations and it is public knowledge that the US government is in possession of this information. So, another big question in the Guyanese society is, how is it that the US government and the international community are so aggressively promoting Messrs. Ali and Jagdeo as the upholders of democracy, while President Granger is being projected to the world as undermining democracy?

Mr. President, there are major questions on not only why has the international community turned a blind eye to the malpractices by the PPP/C in the March 2 elections, but the persons in the PPP/C whom the international community are projecting as the upholders of democracy. I am writing to you Mr. President, because this position by your government and the international community conflicts with what many of us were taught over the years about democracy.
I know that a response may be that the will of the people must be respected, despite this information, the people presumably voted for these persons. In this same light the APNU+AFC are advancing the argument that the PPP/C also committed irregularities, and their voices and that of their supporters ought to be heard, in the interest of fairness which is a key element of democracy.

Mr. President, with all due respect, many of us would really like to know what did President Granger do to warrant this response from the international community? Personally, I live in Guyana and I know the country inside out as we would say in Guyana and I do not think that it is accurate to conclude that he is undermining democracy. Is it that President Granger’s crime is being a black leader for a country that will be one of the fastest growing economies and among the 25 largest oil producers in the world?

This approach will not help Guyana and the Guyanese people, Mr. President. A few of us have pulled together an ad hoc, so-called ‘Governance Group’, to find a solution to this current election impasse and governance solutions for our country moving forward. We developed a proposal for an inclusive- governance approach for possibly the next three years, whereby APNU+AFC and the PPP/C will rotate the presidency and prime ministerial positions during this period; other suggestions were also made for an inclusive- governance arrangement. This proposal was shared with our leaders.

My appeal to you President Trump, is that you and your government kindly have a look at this document, as a possible solution for Guyana. Your legacy on Guyana and for the young people of Guyana could be, as the President of the United States who assisted Guyana to solve a 70-year old ethno-political problem and ushered in a new dispensation of social and economic inclusion and not as one who turned a blind eye to the high possibility of a civil war.
Finally Mr. President, the US is well respected for its values, principles and leadership, I am therefore depending on your good office, to apply the country’s strong leadership towards assisting us to change the course of Guyana, as ‘One People’, working towards developing ‘One Nation’ with ‘One Destiny’. Please do not let this be a missed opportunity!

Regards
Citizen Audreyanna Thomas

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-16-2020

says will ‘hold accountable’ those causing delay

The Government of Canada has stated that it will hold accountable those working against a swift and transparent conclusion to Guyana’s March 2 ,2020 elections.

In statement on Wednesday Global Affairs Canada said that it will do all that is plausible, working with its international partners, to demand that Guyana’s over four-month long elections come to an end. “We support calls by the Organisation of American States, the Caribbean Community [CARlCOM], the Commonwealth, the Caribbean Court of Justice and civil society organizations to announce the results based on the national recount as validated by the CARICOM observer mission Global Affairs Canada stated, adding.

In the interest of the democratic rights of the people of Guyana Canada firmly maintains that the rule of law and democratic processes must be respected and a declaration be announced without further delay. Canada will continue to work with its partners in the international community, using all tool at our disposal to demand a swift and transparent conclusion to the election process and hold accountable those who prevent it.

Canada’s statement came shortly after the statement of United States (U.S) Secretary of state Michael Pompeo in which visa restrictions were announced for individuals responsible for or complicit in undermining democracy in Guyana. The names of those who have been placed on this list is still unknown to the general public.

However the action was taken by the U.S government even while the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has not yet made a declaration on the elections. Added to this the matter of a final declaration from the election Commission is still before Chief Justice, ag of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Justice Roxane George Wiltshire, CCH, SC.

Private citizens Misenga Jones, moved to the High Court in an attempt to compel GECOM to declare the results of the General and Regional Elections in accordance with the Declarations made by the 10 Returning Officers in mid March as advised by the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield. Canada said that it “strongly regrets” the elections impact and stands in support with regional and international governments that have called on Guyana, lo conclude their elections.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_7-16-2020