GUYANA’s unorthodox 2020 General and Regional Elections have proved, undeniably, the need for Guyana’s political leaders to have serious discussions about shared governance, constitutional reform and electoral reform, sooner rather than later.

This is a position shared by many, including Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo who endorsed these and other needed changes in the Sunday column, ‘My Turn’.

The Prime Minister said that the year’s elections have been stained with electoral fraud, a cycle of litigation and ethnic tensions which point to deep-seated issues which will require collective efforts to address.

To set the course, Nagamootoo said that it is crucial that President David Granger and the Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo, meet “urgently” to engage on the way forward.

The last time the President and Opposition leader met was almost one year ago in July 2019 to begin discussions on the selection of a new Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) ahead of the March 2, 2020 elections.

The dialogue, which was later continued by party representatives of the APNU+AFC and People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), ended successfully with the swearing in of Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh as Chair.

The Prime Minister believes that another meeting between the leaders of the country’s main political parties is timely and should prove beneficial in the current tense climate.

Subsequently to this meeting, he endorsed that a multi-stakeholders National Commission be established to prepare for transition to a multi-party/multi-ethnic interim national government based on 50/50 parity in Cabinet.

A national government is a government with members from more than one political party and are especially formed during a crisis.

Nagamootoo also proposed a number of electoral reforms which have proven themselves as necessary during the current elections.

He proposed that the Constitution ought to be amended to depoliticise and broaden the Elections Commission and that laws must be made to regulate campaign financing and foreign interference in the electoral process.

Such recommendations also came out of the European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) report on Guyana’s elections. The Mission had observed that the bipartisan composition of the Commission resulted in excessive polarisation, affecting the Commission’s ability to function, reach common ground and make timely decisions.

Meanwhile, regarding campaign financing, the Mission noted that the legal framework did not sufficiently provide for transparency, accountability and oversight. It also said that the GECOM did not assume its oversight responsibility to monitor campaign finance.

Further to that, the Prime Minister also called for a thorough revision of the voters list to weed out the names of deceased persons, and those who are living permanently in foreign countries.

Other well-known individuals such as businessman, Stanley Ming and Attorney-at-Law, Nigel Hughes have pointed out that the decision to head into the crucial elections with a bloated Official List of Electors (OLE) and the halting of the house-to-house registration exercise was a “recipe for chaos”.

Prior to the OLE’s confirmation, GECOM Commissioners nominated by the government had argued that under no circumstance could Guyana’s population of 750,000 plus persons produce such large Voters List considering that the school-age population is around 200,000.

There were also issues regarding the presence of the dead and migrated on the list and, while efforts were made through the General Registrar’s Office (GRO) to remove some of the dead, the Court ruled that residency was not a requirement for voting in Guyana.

Even in accepting the decisions, Government-nominated Commissioners contended that with Guyana’s known history in accusations of rigged elections and calls for the recounting of votes, heading into ‘the mother of all elections’ the most credible List should have been sought.

However, the PPP/C opposed the continuation of the exercise and made light of the calls to remove the dead and migrants. Fast forward to post E-Day, Guyana has engaged in a national recount and several court battles and is yet to declare its elections results due to contention on the validity of votes cast which include the deceased and migrated.

Also, in his list of endorsed recommendations was a call for the personal data of all Guyanese nationals to be protected from unauthorised access and manipulation for electoral purposes.

The PPP/C’s 2020 elections campaign is still being viewed as highly suspicious by the governing APNU+AFC as information has been released about the party’s involvement with Cambridge Analytica, a data marketing firm that uses data to change audience behaviour. It has been exposed internationally for its practices of data harvesting from tens of millions of Facebook users — in some cases, private messages.

Another company the party is involved with includes Mercury Public Affairs — an American firm contracted by the PPP/C in March 2019 — from which representatives entering the country and were found in possession of cyber equipment according to reports.

The final endorsement by the Prime Minister was for fresh elections to be held under the aegis of the United Nations (UN) within three years.

“These are by no means novel or new ideas but I share them today with a view to stimulating a national dialogue on the way forward so that we could avoid the pitfalls that would attend zero-sum, winner-takes-all elections,” he stated.

“For too long Guyanese have been trapped in these ethnic silos in which we have found it difficult to breathe and to grow. We have to step out and away from our collective self-entrapment, and literally escape from the political labyrinth. Together we must face our many challenges and enjoy our new opportunities as an enviable rich petroleum state.”

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

Min Raphael Trotman said that CEO’s report cannot be rescinded 

Disgruntled parties must take up election petition after declaration as CCJ ruled

“TIU: CEO, once be tenders that advice and that report under Section 96 of the Representation of the People’s Act, it cannot be undone and it can’t be changed or replaced and whatever quarrel we may have or whether they’ve been an inadvertent or deliberate error, it can only be cured or remedied by an elections petition,” APNU+AFC Co-Campaign Manager, Raphael Trotman said on Sat­urday. 

Speaking on an APNlJ+AFC programme, the Minister of Natural Resources said that, based on his legal understanding, advice given to his party in 2006 and the Caribbean Court of Justice’s (CCJ’s) recent decision, it appears that a declaration must be made and those not in favour of the results must take to the courts but only after it is made. 

Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, submit­ted his Elections Report to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) on Saturday, showing a win for the APNU +AFC. It is the third of its kind since the conduct of the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections and is, for the first time, reflective of the declarations made in March 2 020 by the Returning Officers in the country’s JO Electoral Districts. 

There is now great national debate, and amongst G ECOM Commissioners, about whether his report should have been guided by the March 2 elections results from the IO decla­rations or the subsequent national recount which the CCJ picked apart. 

ln explaining his position on the matter, Trotman pointed to 2006 when he and now Minister of Public Infrastructure, David Patterson, visited the GECOM headquarters to meet with the then Chairman and CEO, when he said they were told that once the CEO’s report has been issued, no changes could be made. 

“We were told that he could not go back and make any changes to it even if there were patent /laws or errors and we were then told that an elections petition had to be filed if we intended to pursue gaining the seat which had been wrongfully allocated to the PPP,” Trotman recounted. 

Furthern1ore, he said that while the GECOM Chair has di­rected that the recount data be used and the People’s Progres­sive Party/Civic (PPP/C) has been clamouring for Lowenfield to use same, no one can dictate the actions of the CEO who has indicated that his report is in keeping with the law. 

Trotman said that \\i1ile some point to Section 18 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act which stipulates that the CEO is «subject to the direction and control of the Commis­sion”, the fact. remains that the CEO has a statutory and a constitutional duty and no Commission, Court or person can direct him to de) ever results of their choosing. 

He drew for example the similarity that the Minister of Public Security cannot instruct the Commissioner of Police how to conduct his operations. 

Trotman also noted that while some disgruntled with Lowenfield ‘s report have called for him to be replaced, a new CEO would not be able to certify the elections unless that person was present and working alongside the CEO during the elections and rightfully qualifies for the said position. 

The Minister stated: “I hear people saying ‘fire him’ but, quite frankly, if you dismiss the CEO, we’re going to plunge ourselves into deeper trouble because no one can rightfully now assume his responsibilities to say ‘I can certify this or that result’ because no one else has the general and even specific authority and supervision of these elections 0th.er than the CEO.” 

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS 

Trotman said that though some had hoped that CCJ’s ruling would have provided finality on Guyana’s elections leading to a swift declaration, the very opposite came out of the Court’s assumption of jurisdiction and ruling whereby the Elections Commission is now left with many uncertainties.

“We are in uncharted waters; we are in, I would say, a Constitutional crisis. Unfortunately, the CCJ has muddied the waters rather than made it clearer for us … in a week’s time, they sought to come down with some decisions which turned out not to be helpful. They left several an1biguities,” he said. 

One of which he outlines was the current uncertainty about the legal effect of Order No.60 — the legal cover used to facilitate the national recount which pointed to massive irregularities and close to 5,000 cases of voter impersonation. 

The Elections Commission had relied on Article 162 of the Constitution, and Section 22 of the Elections Law (Amend­ment) Act to bring Order No. 60 into effect, but the CCJ, in its ruling, said the allocation of seats in the National Assembly and the identification of the successful presidential candidate could only be based on the reports of the Returning Officers. 

It was on that basis that the CEO submitted his latest Elections Report, no longer on the infom1ation coming out of the recount, but in accordance with the Representation of the People Act, based on the declaration made by Returning Officers in the 10 Electoral Districts in March.

However, the PPP/C argues that Order No. 60 and therefore the recount data — which shows victory for the PPP/C — was not set aside by the CCJ but was actually endorsed by the Court and should be used to make the declaration. 

Still, in this case, the question would remain of whether one can only adhere to one aspect of a legally binding Order and not the Order in its entirety without amounting to a breach of the Order. 

Turing back to the role of the CEO, Trotman said: “We are in the throes of a Constitutional crisis. I don’t see how any section of the Representation of the People Act, or any powers that the Commission may have, could overturn or undo that report once it is issued and, given the reasoning of the CCJ, it would appear that any aggrieved party or parties would have to await a declaration and then approach the High Court for a petition to set aside that declaration.” 

He also put forward the option that the Commission is in its right to state that it cannot make a declaration based on the circumstances. However, like the rest of Guyana, Trotman said that one can only wait to see what unfolds at the Commission level. 

A GUYANA PROBLEM 

At the end of the day, the Minister said that the issues at hand are Guyana’s problems and the country and its leaders ,viii have to find a way forward. He said that those who do not !Understand the history of Guyana’s elections and politics may not be able to provide proper guidance on the situation. 

“There seems to be more outside and external interest in our elections than there is in Guyana More foreign states seem to be more interested in a particular outcome than even the people of Gu ana to some extent, to the point where they are prepared to breach all international protocol. Sand conventions and say and do things which are unheard of and which could not even have been risked or entertained in their own states,” he said. 

With the tensions high, he said that he is nonetheless pleased that President David Granger, Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo and members of civil society have encouraged patience amongst the people so that chaos does not ensue. 

However, he condemned reported acts of persons previously seeking to intimidate the GECOM Chair in weeks passed by throwing snakes into her yard and flying drones over her home; and the threats coming to the CEO for seeking to do his constitutional duty. 

“We pray that the peace prevails, we pray that good sense prevails,” Trotman said. “In the days ahead, I believe that the political leaders will be called on to find a way forward. It will not be the first time that political leaders have had to have dialogue. We’re locked in an epic battle where neither side intends to budge and, unfortunately, elections in Guyana have been where one has to win and one has to lose. But I do believe that the time has come for us to seriously look at finding a way where both sides could win and the country can win”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Say professor sir Hilary Beckles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘STAY THE COURSE’ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully,
Citizen Audreyanna Thomas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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