–Alexander dismisses contention Mingo’s March 13 declaration fraudulent
THE 10 declarations currently being held in abeyance by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) will not be automatically replaced upon completion of tabulation of the Statements of Recount (SORs) for the 10 electoral districts, Elections Commissioner Vincent Alexander said, while noting that in accordance with the Order that triggered the recount, there shall only be one declaration made at the end of the entire process and is – the result of the General and Regional Elections.
It was reported that the results of the tabulated Statements of Recount (SORs) would be declared per electoral district upon their completion, thereby replacing the existing declarations that were issued by returning officers for the 10 electoral regions, but Alexander on Monday clarified that only one declaration would be made, and that is, after a determination is made by the elections commission in accordance with the Order.
“My understanding is that we will not be making district declarations in the manner in which they are made after the normal close of the polls…The district recounts will be reported to the commission and the commission will then authorise the chief elections officer pursuant to provisions of the Representation of the People Act to prepare the relevant declaration,” Alexander told reporters on Monday on the margins of the national recount taking place at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre.
According to the Order gazetted on May 6, a copy of the signed matrix (tabulated SORs) for each electoral district ought to be submitted to the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield for a final tabulation. “The matrices for the recount of the ten (10) Electoral Districts shall then be tabulated by the Chief Election Officer and shall be submitted in a report, together with a summary of the observation reports for each District, to the Commission,” a section of the order reads, while further detailing that the commission shall, after deliberating on the report, determine whether it should request the chief elections officer to use the data compiled as the basis for submission of a report under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act.
However, Alexander said while there will not be 10 individual declarations, the Observation Reports emanating from the electoral districts will be submitted to the elections commission upon completion of the tabulation process at the regional level. “After one district is complete, there will be a compilation of a report that comes to the commission; that gives us the opportunity to examine that,” the commissioner said.
GECOM Public Relations Officer Yolanda Ward also confirmed that the order provides for a single declaration. “There will not be a declaration by region but there is going to be a complete report that is going to be prepared,” Ward said while referencing to Section 12 of the Order which addresses submission of the report to the elections commission by the chief elections officer. “It is a report that will be presented to the commission for liberation [sic], after which they will further guide the CEO as to how to prepare his report based on Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act,” Ward further explained.
MINGO’S DECLARATION STILL VALID
The national recount aside, both Ward and Alexander debunked claims that the second declaration made by Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo was fraudulent. The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), in recent days, has ignited the issues surrounding the Region Four declaration, contending that it was fraudulently declared.
However, both Ward and Alexander told reporters that there is no evidence to support the claims being peddled by the PPP/C. In official court documents presented in the High Court, the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, while acknowledging that the initial declaration made by Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo was set aside by Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire, said during the final tabulation exercise, Statements of Poll (SOPs) were used at all material times.
He explained that after the chief justice’s ruling on March 11, 2020, the returning officer, on the morning of March 13, recommenced the tabulation process to ascertain the votes cast for each List of Candidates. That, he said, was done in the presence of the persons who were entitled to be there, as outlined in Section 86 (1) of the Representation of the People Act.
“The Statements of Poll were scanned in the presence of persons entitled to be there and displayed. All the Statements of Poll were picked up, one after the other, in the presence of the persons entitled to be there, and were scanned in their presence, and also displayed in their presence on the screen set up for that purpose… At no time did the returning officer and the election clerks read or call votes cast for the List of Candidates from a spreadsheet,” Lowenfield said while maintaining his position.
On Sunday, PPP/C executive Anil Nandlall in an interview with reporters suggested that Mingo’s second declaration was fraudulent and in contradiction of the law, but Alexander and Ward are maintaining that there is no evidence to substantiate the claim being made by the PPP/C.
In fact, records show that while the High Court ruled on Mingo’s first declaration made on March 5, the court did not adjudicate on the second declaration. In fact, the PPP/C, through one of its supporters, had filed contempt proceedings but this case was shelved after President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo, upon the intervention of the CARICOM Chair, and Prime Minister Mia Mottley, agreed to the national recount.
Alexander, in responding to a series of questions, made it clear that the recount, which subsequently followed, was not birthed as a result of any fraudulent activity.
“I think that one has to bear in mind that the process of recount is called for across the regions and that in some instances, the process was started and aborted, as was the case in Region Six; in other instances the process was held in abeyance as in the case of Region Five; and in other instances, the process was rejected in the case of Region Four and Region Three,” Alexander explained.
The gazetted order establishes this fact. The elections commission, in the order, explained that the General and Regional Elections were held in Guyana on March 2, 2020, the electoral process encountered a number of stumbling blocks and in some instances, parts of the process were legally challenged in the courts.
It explained that though declarations of the results were made in accordance with Section 84 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, requests for recounts in a number of electoral districts were rejected, aborted, or held in abeyance.
Further to that, a report detailing the results of the elections was submitted to the chairperson of the elections commission, but that too was held in abeyance, and aspects of the electoral process were challenged in court.
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_12_05_2020