–willfully trying to mislead on election
By Lincoln Lewis
IT is important for us to recognise acting Chief Justice (CJ) Roxane George-Wiltshire’s exposure of the Opposition’s moves in court. The case brought by the late Reeaz Holladar against Region Four Returning Officer (RO), Clairmont Mingo, which sought to have the court imprison him on charges of contempt, was withdrawn last Thursday by Attorney-at-law Anil Nandall.
In withdrawing the case, he admitted to the CJ there was insufficient evidence available at the time of the suit to buttress the charge. This drew a reprimand from the CJ, who told him he was wasting the court’s time. George-Wiltshire expressed shock that though she had already prepared her decision, she received notice from Nandlall, the day before, that his client had a weak case. It was her legal opinion that Anil knew this from the inception. Refer to 12th June media coverage of the ruling.
Nandlall is no fool; he knew he was engaged in grandstanding, playing to the political gallery, and wooing the international community, who followed him like the Pied Piper on falsehood. There was no desire to have the 11th March ruling implemented, but a desire to create more chaos and confusion. Said ruling speaks to a case which was brought by the Opposition, resulting in the nullification of Mingo’s first declaration. Mingo was directed by the CJ to tabulate the count as outlined in Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act.
On the 12th March, while this exercise was being conducted, the Opposition threw a fit, expressing dissatisfaction with the process utilised by GECOM to satisfy the court’s order, and returned to the acting CJ. The court held counsel with the Opposition and GECOM, and the parties agreed to a mechanism to tabulate the Statements of Poll.
Reportedly on 13th March, the RO proceeded to do the count, consistent with the agreement. This was not allowed to proceed without another protest. Etched in our memory is the staged walk-out by the Ambassadors of the European Union and United States, and the High Commissioners of Britain and Canada, protesting that the tabulation process was flouting the ruling. How can we forget the spectacle?
These public servants subsequently issued a joint statement that “they decided to leave the Region 4 tabulation process… as it was clear that a transparent and credible process was not put in place by the responsible officials.” The Commonwealth, European Union and Carter Center Observer Missions parroted, stating that “The order of the Honourable Chief Justice on 11 March was not followed. The tabulation process did not resume on 12 March as mandated by the court.” The Organisation of American States announced they were packing up and leaving.
The international community should feel ashamed of themselves, if they were not part of this disruptive plot or allowed themselves to be fooled. Either way, it suggests lack of knowledge or disinterest in understanding our electoral system, and a comfort in relying on others to interpret for them. In so doing, they adopted a partisan position in violation of “good” diplomacy and international standard for observers of an election. They have aided the polarisation and animosity we are witnessing.
Readers would recall on 31st March, Justice Franklyn Holder, in addressing a case brought by Holladar to set aside Mingo’s second declaration, pronounced that “based on documents tendered before the Court, Mingo subsequently took the necessary steps to comply with the ruling of the Court, and more importantly, Section 84” (GC 1st April – ‘No jurisdiction’ | High Court throws out PPP’s challenge to Mingo’s declaration).
Said article quoted Justice Holder as saying, “…as of Tuesday, March 31, 2020, there was no evidence before the Court stating that the Region Four Returning Officer breached the High Court Order handed down by Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire.” What we are witnessing in this election cycle is not only the tsunami of misinformation, the undermining of our independence and acts of self-determination, but also efforts to use the court to further political mischief rather than seeking peaceful resolution towards welding this nation.
When initial contention with the Region Four votes was raised, Keith Lowenfield, Chief Elections Officer (CEO), offered an administrative resolution. He encouraged all to bring their statement, and do the verification, and “If, at the end of the day, that doesn’t work, the CEO will be involved with his statement to have a resolution to the issue” (DW, March 4, 2020- GECOM resolves vote padding concerns, resume verification on Region 4). This was rebuffed.
Chairperson Justice Claudette Singh gave the court the commitment that she will have the votes recounted if there remains dissatisfaction. This commitment preceded the signed agreement between President David Granger and PPP General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo for a National Recount.
Those who lack the discerning capacity to recognise or chose to ignore the destabilising efforts in ensuring an orderly electoral process, thanks to the judiciary, we can use the power vested in GECOM to correct anomalies. This independent constitutional body doesn’t necessarily have to wait for an election petition to address “difficulties” associated with the election.
The present phase of the electoral process continues to be governed by our Constitution and Election laws. These stipulate how we can proceed to produce “credible” election, and by extension result. The gazetted Order of 4th May expounded what this credibility entails, and how GECOM shall proceed in determining same. The Order is a public document.
Where some are too lazy to read our laws, they have no excuse failing to read the Order, for this is what is guiding the present focus, and will bring finality to the current exercise. Last Wednesday, Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines had the audacity to say what GECOM must do. If he, the Western public servants, et al, refuse to take the time to acquaint themselves with the Order, their absence of knowledge, hence informed opinion, remain their problem; not Guyana’s.
Notwithstanding efforts to rock the society’s core, the judiciary has withstood the test, proving its independence. I say this, mindful of continuous efforts to undermine our laws and GECOM’s independence. Some continue to ignore one fundamental fact: Guyana is a sovereign nation. Our elections are governed by our laws, and we shall use our laws in the determination of our electoral processes and outcome.
Whereas our international counterparts are demanding “credible result”, they are not singular in this regard. Guyanese are demanding the same. And whereas on this issue we may be of one accord, there exists uncertainty that credibility as determined within the confines of our laws, pervasive ignorance and malice could prove challenging, if the outcome does not favour the desire of either side.
Labour is a stakeholder in the election. Outside of all combined political parties, Labour has the largest constituency. It is the trade union movement which, in 1926, initiated and led the charge for the one-man one-vote and internal self-governance. Trade unionists are not about to surrender our legacy; Labour is concerned about the equitable distribution of this nation’s resources to the benefit of the working-class. Our interest lies in the day-to-day good governance of this society.
We want to see meaning given to Article 13 of the Guyana Constitution, which came out of the 1997 elections. We demand devolution of power from the Executive right down to the Neighbourhood Democratic Councils. We also demand fullest meaning to inclusionary democracy as outlined in Articles 75 and 76 that give greater financial autonomy throughout the existing de-centralised political system.
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_15_2020