…AG defends Lowenfield’s report
…says CEO executed duties in conformity with provisions of gazetted order
THE contents of the Chief Elections Officer’s (CEO’s) report on the national recount have been making the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) uneasy, having already proclaimed that it won the 2020 Elections based on the numerical count of the votes.
But while the recount shows that the PPP/C secured the highest number of votes, the report points to more than 7,000 anomalies and alleged cases of voter impersonation. In the words of the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield, the elections were not credible, and in part, were in breach of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act.
The PPP/C, in particular its General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo, has accused the CEO of being part of ‘rigging cabal.’ According to the PPP/C, Lowenfield’s report was subjective and a violation of the order.
In the CEO’s defence, the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams SC, said that Lowenfield complied with the provisions of paragraph 12 of Order No. 60 of 2020 made under Article 162 (1) (b) of the Constitution and Section 22 of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act.
“He has submitted the matrices for the recount of the 10 Electoral Districts and a summary of the Observation Reports (ORs) for each district, together with his report to the commission for their deliberation,” the Attorney General said.
In its attacks on the CEO, the PPP/C contended that it was not for the CEO to “offer a view, opinion or judgment, either in the Observation Report or matrices to be tabulated” but Minister Williams said this contention is far from the truth.
Outlining paragraph 12, he said, “The matrices for the recount of the 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.”
He pointed out that the word “report” is defined in the Oxford Dictionary of English as a written account of something that one has observed, done or investigated.
“It is pellucid that it is contemplated that the CEO, in addition to tabulating and summarising, is expected in giving his ‘report’ to express his views, opinions and judgments on his observations and investigations done, in that dual process. Moreover, it is implied in summarising the ORs, that the CEO is expected to bring his mind to bear on what he would include or exclude and would be therefore expressing a view or opinion on the ORs. On a proper reading of paragraph twelve (12), one cannot find such restrictions on the exercise of the CEO’s functions thereunder as contended by the PPP/C,” Williams argued.
He maintains that the PPP/C’s allegation that the CEO’s report is ultra vires, unconstitutional and the like, is reminiscent of the wild recourse to the High Court, claiming that the Returning Officer of Electoral District Four was in contempt of the court, but which was thrown out by the learned Chief Justice, Madam Roxane George-Wiltshire.
“In light of the foregoing, any reasonable person would conclude that the CEO executed his duties with professionalism, integrity, impartiality and in conformity with provisions of paragraph twelve (12) of the Order,” the Attorney General said.
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_15_2020