—attorneys say case political, personal, of nuisance value
CHIEF Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, was granted $450,000 bail on Friday, following his appearance in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court to answer to three private criminal charges brought against him for alleged fraud and misconduct.
However, lawyers representing the CEO blasted the prosecutors for being ill-prepared, attempting to remove opponents from the case and failure to raise their concerns with the Guyana Police Force (GPF) for investigation. The charges in question were filed by People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Member, Desmond Morian, and by General Secretary of The New Movement (TNM), Daniel Kanhai, on June 30, 2020.
Lowenfield appeared before Magistrate Faith McGusty and was not required to plead to the indictable charges. There were two offences of conspiracy to commit a felony and one charge of misconduct in public office. He was granted $150,000 bail on each charge.
The CEO was represented by Senior Counsel Neil Boston and Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes while Morian and Kanhai were represented by Attorney-at-Law, Glenn Hanoman and others. The charge filed by Kanhai against Lowenfield for ‘Conspiracy to Commit a Felony contrary to the Section 34 of the Criminal Law (Offenses) Act Chapter 8:01’ while the other filed by Morian is for ‘Misconduct in Public Office contrary to The Common Law’.
Earlier this month, Magistrate McGusty issued a summons for Lowenfield to attend court and answer to the charges. When the case was initially called, the CEO was a no-show, primarily because he was not served. However, he was eventually served on Thursday, July 23.
PLOY DIVERTED
Leaving the Court, Hughes and Boston gave comments to the media amidst the shouts of APNU+AFC protesters for “valid votes only” and heavy police presence. They both believe that the charges laid against Lowenfield were baseless and political.
In fact, Hughes criticised Hanoman for his ill-preparedness to face the Court and for his attempts to get the Court to remove Mr. Boston from the case.
“Mr. Hanoman, literally two minutes before the Court was convened had a very casual, professional discussion with myself and Mr. Boston where he indicated that he wanted to call Mr. Boston as a witness for the prosecution. He then went into the Court and indicated to the Court, after Mr. Boston had entered in appearance as lead of the team, that he was objecting to Mr. Boston because he intended to call him as a witness. Naturally, we had very strenuous objections to this,” Hughes stated.
He explained that it is expected that statements from witnesses are prepared beforehand and if Boston was required as a witness that he would be made aware of this in advance as basic courtesy. Hughes said: “I think the ploy was disclosed for what it was. It was attempting to get Mr. Boston off the case; it was attempting to gain some level of mileage.” When the objection was made by Hanoman, Boston defended himself.
POLITICAL AND PERSONAL
Meanwhile, speaking to the media, the Senior Counsel said that Hanoman had set out to bring politics into the Courtroom, an intention which was not tolerated by himself or Hughes. “Mr. Hanoman made a political speech… I thought he was at Babu Jaan or he was at Lusignan,” Boston said. Furthermore, the lawyers said that the attacks on Lowenfield were not based primarily on the law but on personal matters that have nothing to do with the charges filed.
Hughes stated: “Mr. Hanoman said he had no objections to bail but then proceeded to make a series of what I would consider political statements suggesting that somehow or the other Mr. Lowenfield was going to remove official documents from GECOM to which we took strenuous objections. One of the concerns that we had in the Court, that we repeatedly expressed to the Court, was the fact that we did not want the Court to become the forum for a political battle and they were sufficient senior lawyers who were present to keep this within the confines of the law.”
Added to this, Boston said that, while not objecting to bail, Hanoman argued that the CEO should be asked to pay a large sum given that he had property at Wales on the West Bank of Demerara (WBD) and more than one house.
However, Boston corrected the attorney: “That’s not how it is done. The whole issue of bail is to ensure that the accused returns to Court to stand this trial…[Hanoman] made all kinds of outrageous allegations based on hearsay…it must be a political thing if the charges, to me, have nuisance value, nothing else. There’s no substance in the charge.”
UNPREPARED
Hughes said that, eventually, the Magistrate granted Mr. Lowenfield bail in the sum of $150,000 on each offence. However, after bail had been granted, Hanoman indicated to the Court that he had 800 statements to take from various witnesses.
“We, of course, naturally had an objection to that because we thought that if he had taken the time to bring the charges he would be ready and prepared to start. He asked for an adjournment that was a month away. The Court, however, granted an adjournment to mid-August for him to produce whatever statements that he has,” Hughes said, adding: “It is evident to us at this point in time that 1) they are not ready and 2) if they have the concerns they say they have, even though not objecting to bail, that those concerns should have been raised with the Guyana Police Force and any appropriate law enforcement agency.”
When Hanoman, Morian and Kanhai exited the Court, the media pressed them for a response on what took place but the presence of a jeering crowd of APNU+AFC supporters convinced the men that it was best to leave. The newspaper later sought out Hanoman at his office but was made aware that he was absent.
The particulars of the offence as sworn to oath by Morian states: “The accused, between 5th March 2020 and 29th June 2020, while performing his duty as the Chief Elections Officer of the Guyana Elections Commission, without lawful excuse or justification, willfully misconducted himself…by ascertaining results of the 2nd March 2020 General and Regional Elections for Guyana, knowing the said results to be false, the said willful misconduct amounting to a breach of the public’s trust in the Office of the Chief Elections Office of the Guyana Elections Commission.”
Meanwhile, the particulars of the offence as sworn to oath by Kanhai state: “The accused, between the 5th day of March 2020 and 23rd day of June 2020…conspired with person (s) unknown to commit the common law offence of fraud, to wit, by representing to the Guyana Elections Commission, that tables attached to his Election Report dated 23rd June, 2020, accurately reflected the true results of the said election, in order to materially alter the results of the said election, with intent to defraud, knowing the said tabulation to be false.” The CEO is expected to make his next court appearance on August 14. Since the breakdown in the tabulation of Region Four Statements of Poll (SOPs) in early March 2020, members of the collective Opposition have pointed fingers in several directions, one of which was Lowenfield’s. The charges in question are based on the CEO’s Elections Report submitted to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) on June 23.
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_25_07_2020