Court to rule on future of 2020 elections today

Mar 11, 2020 News

Chief Justice, (Ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire yesterday listened to oral presentations from lawyers embroiled in the lawsuit against GECOM over unverified vote counts for Region Four- the nation’s largest voting population. The Court is set to rule on the matter at 14:00 hours today.

Chief Justice, (Ag) Roxane George –Wiltshire

The case stems from contentions raised by the main political opposition People’s Progressive Party/Civic, (PPP/C) that the votes raised must be verified before they are declared.
On one side, Reaz Holladar, a private citizen is represented by a legal team led by Trinidadian Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, backed by lawyers from the PPP/C. He is challenging the Guyana Elections Commission, (GECOM) its Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, and Clairmont Mingo, the Returning Officer for Region 4.
On the other side, GECOM lead counsel, Neil Boston S.C is contending that his clients did comply with the law in accordance with what is required before the declaration is made.
In his less than an hour oral submission, Trinidadian Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes asked the Court to examine statements as it relates to the events which transpired prior to when the purported declarations were made by the Returning Officer of Region Four, Clairmont Mingo.
Mendes noted that GECOM presented six affidavits in the case, from a number of persons including Aubrey Norton, the Deputy Chief Elections Officer Roxanne Meyers, and attorneys-at-law James Bond, and the Returning Officer Mingo.
Mingo and GECOM’s CEO Keith Lowenfield sat side-by-side in the courtroom yesterday as Mendes argued that the R.O failed to comply with Section 84 (1) of the Representation of the Peoples Act.
Mendes told the Court that based on the affidavit provided, Mingo left Senior Clerk Michelle Miller to assist with the electoral process after he suddenly fell ill Tuesday night.
“The votes were processed in Mr. Mingo’s absence after he took ill and was rushed to the hospital. When he returned, all the data had been inputted into a computer by Ms. Miller and other clerks who assisted her. Ms. Miller had supervised the data entry process.”
Mendes said that Section 86 (1) of the aforesaid Act states that the Returning Officer can decide which elections officer can assist him.
However, he clarified that Miller did not fall into that category and as such could not be designated to perform such duties by the Returning Officer.
“Anyone else doing the calculation is in breach and violation of the articles set out in the Act.” the Senior Counsel added.
The Senior Counsel explained further, that Mingo’s declaration for Region Four had 897 polling stations and he only allowed for the tabulation of 421 Statement of Polls (SoPs).
“He clearly aborted the process.”
“He then purported to have gone ahead and prepared a final report for the 10 electoral districts despite contentions raised about the stark disparity between the SOPs he had in his possession and the one presented by Sonia Parag– a PPP candidate.”
The next question, the lawyer posited is “whether calculation of the votes was done according to the formula prescribed by law.”
Relying on precedence from the case of Joseph Hamilton versus GECOM the lawyer said it is his view Mingo flouted his duties.
He therefore asked the Court to find the declaration unconstitutional, illegal, null, void and of no effect.
Mendes stressed, too, that the court should issue an order mandating Mingo to follow the relevant electoral laws; it will ensure public trust and confidence in the country’s electoral system.
In response to the arguments presented, Boston told the Court that the R.O could adopt whatever method he wishes to use. “In which case, he used spreadsheets, instead of SOPs,” the lawyer said.
Further, he contended that the PPP’s main issue is with the discrepancies between SoPs.
“There is a remedy provided for this; a recount pursuant to Section 84 (2) of the said Act,” the lawyer added.
Boston sought to specifically tackle the argument that the verification process had been incomplete. He noted that in his view failure to do the verification process does not in any way invalidate the declaration.
The attorney pleaded that the R.O was in “substantial compliance with the law.” Mendes countered the argument noting that substantial compliance does not constitute “compliance.”
“It is like saying that I am supposed to run a 100 meters race and completed 50 meters and won on the basis of substantial compliance,” he said.
Justice George-Wiltshire said that in her view, the law seems not to suggest any uniform method for counting votes.
According to the Judge, the law seems to imply that it is left up to each Returning Officer to kind of figure out what technique is best.