Lowenfield says I acted in conformity with the law but cites no provisions

Jun 27, 2020 News

---

Submission of third report on elections results…

In attempt to defend his actions as it relates to the submitting an elections results report to the commission, Chief Elections Officer (CEO) of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Keith Lowenfield yesterday noted that he acted in conformity with the law.
In a release to the press, Lowenfield sought to defend his position to submit a report in which 115,000 votes were invalidated from a count of the March, 2 Regional and General Elections. The CEO however failed to pinpoint which legal provisions give him the powers to act outside of the direction of the Commission.
The report represented a third document submitted by Lowenfield which placed the incumbent A Partnership for National Unity +Alliance For Change (APNU+ AFC) administration in a considerable lead ahead of the Opposition, People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C). Lowenfield was initially instructed to submit a report based on the CARICOM-supervised election recount. That report places the PPP/C in the lead by some 15,000 votes.
In a response to an article published in another section of the news in which he is accused on acting insubordinate of the instructions of the Commission, Lowenfield said that the accusation seem to have come from a source that only read the Constitution in part.
He claimed that the article conveniently failed to recognise the sections that dictate the functions of the Chief Election Officer.
“While the Commission makes certain policy decisions and provides guidance to the Chief Election Officer for implementation by the Secretariat, I have to execute my duties as a Constitutional Officer, particularly in the conduct of Elections,” Lowenfield said.
Lowenfield noted that the contents of the news article suggest that the CEO must only act as the Commission instructs and flout the Constitutional requirements.
“At all times, I have acted in conformity with the laws and therefore my action cannot be ‘seen as clear act of insubordination’ as articulated in the ill informed article,” the CEO added.
The latest report submitted by Lowenfield to GECOM would hand the victory in the March 2 polls to the APNU+AFC coalition, giving it a one-seat majority in the parliament. To do this, the CEO report dumps 115,844 of the valid votes tabulated during the National Recount, reducing the valid votes cast in the General Election from 460,352 to 344,508. Moments after Lowenfield sent out a statement responding to the allegations of insubordination, the APNU+AFC followed suit.
The Party in a lengthy statement stated that the CEO is clearly empowered and instructed by the Constitution and Laws of Guyana, not by any other entity or person and that he has discharged his functions within the ambit of the law.
“In keeping with the guidance,” the release noted, “set out by the Court of Appeal in Eslyn David v. Chief Election Officer, et al., and as he is required to do by the Representation of the People Act [at Section 96], the CEO prepared and submitted his Election Report on 23rd June 2020.”
However, in a statement which followed, the Opposition People’s Progress Party/Civic ( PPP/C) noted Section 18 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act 2000 states: “The Chief Election Officer and the Commissioner of Registration shall notwithstanding anything in any written law be subject to the direction and control of the Commission.”
Additionally, the Party noted specifically that Order 60/2020 upon which he and APNU/AFC rely states in pertinent part as that The Commission shall, after deliberating on the report at paragraph 12, determine whether it should request the Chief Election Officer to use the data compiled in accordance with paragraph 12 as the basis for the submission of a report under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act Cap 1:03, provided that the Commission shall, no later than three days after receiving the report, make the declaration.
Meanwhile, attorney-at-law Charles Ramson in an invited comment pointed out several issues with which Lowenfield’s response can be deemed defective. Ramson, who is a member of the PPP/C, first debunked the assertions that Lowenfield is a “Constitutional Officer.” According to him, Lowenfield should be advised that a singular reference to an officer in the Constitution does not make him a “Constitutional Officer,” without the attendant provisions defining the office such as its genesis.
He noted however that in fact, the Chief Election Officer is a “statutory officer” which finds its genesis in the Representation of the People Act 1:04.
“The insertion of the reference to the office in the Constitution came in the year 2000 after the issues which arose pertaining to the swearing in of former President Janet Jagan,” Ramson pointed out.
He noted further that Lowenfield’s assertion that there are “sections” of the Constitution, which “dictate the functions of the Chief Election Officer are both incorrect and misleading.
There are no “sections” in the Constitution which “dictate the functions of the Chief Election Officer”, Ramson stated, adding that all of the functions of the Chief Election Officer is contained in the ROPA 1:03.
Additionally, Ramson noted that Lowenfield’s statement that GECOM only makes policy decisions and provides guidance to the Chief Election Officer is entirely incorrect.
“Article 162 of the Constitution,” he argued, “specifically states that GECOM ‘shall issue such instructions and take such action as appears to it necessary … to ensure … compliance with the provisions of this Constitution or of any Act of Parliament on the part of persons exercising powers or performing duties connected with or relating to” either the conduct of elections or registration of electors. Before Lowenfield pursues a precipitous course of action which will lead inevitably to failure, he may also direct his attention to S. 18 of the Elections Laws Act and point number 15 of the Recount Order which state that the Chief Election Officer shall be subject to the “direction and control” and “general supervisory power” of the Commission.”

---

---