I disagree with Mr. Norton's conclusion that the CEO of GECOM is defending the Constitution

I disagree with Mr. Norton’s conclusion that the CEO of GECOM is defending the Constitution

Jul 16, 2020 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,

I note a letter penned by Mr. Aubrey C. Norton in the local press on July 15, 2020, captioned “CEO is defending the Constitution”. Please permit me Editor to respond to this inaccurate conclusion from Mr. Norton.
From my readings of the situation, the only instances of deviation from the Constitution have been some specific actions on the part of Mr. Mingo and Mr. Lowenfield. No less a person than Mr. David Granger had sought to embrace these fake Mingo numbers and the fraudulent Lowenfield discounted summary figures. But what is absolutely clear is that those numbers were constructed in violation of the spirit and intent of the Constitution.
Clause 46 of the CCJ ruling stated, “Article 177(2)(b) rightly only needed to reference “more votes” and there was no basis for the Court of Appeal to assume jurisdiction to interpret that provision. It is clear that, under the legal infrastructure governing the electoral process, unless and until an election court decides otherwise, the votes already counted as valid votes are incapable of being declared invalid by any person or authority. In this respect, the Guyanese electoral system is not very different from other such systems in other Commonwealth Caribbean countries.”
How difficult is this for Granger to understand?
Article 177 (2) of the Constitution further establishes that the only way to win an election is “if more votes are cast in favour” of your list. Mr. Granger has to be sadly lacking in the knowledge of arithmetic if he cannot understand that 233,336 votes cast for the PPP/C are more than the 217,920 votes cast for the APNU+AFC. It is as if the West Indies (WI) amassed 233 runs against the English Team who was only able to muster 217 runs in a one-day match. However, a bent bookie, approached the umpire at the end of the game and demanded that he illegally discount several runs from the WI score to grant England the victory. Why? Because he feels that there were “no-balls and wides” being bowled and not capture by the scoreboard.
This principle continues to evade the folks at Congress Place, that all of their actions to date come across as “bent, twisted and crooked”. They contested an elections and they lost; fair and square. It is time they wake up and appreciate that Mr. Lowenfield has no power to alter the numbers and cannot vitiate the process and the outcome.
On Elections Night, some 2,339 Presiding Officers and their Team, collectively established that the PPP/C got 15,000 plus more votes than the APNU+AFC. That tally was confirmed, by and large, in the recount process at the ACCC and proved again in the final tally that the APNU+AFC was behind the PPP/C by 15,000 plus votes. So these numbers that Mingo has attempted to construct lacks credibility and are downright fake.
This is the reason why the lawyers for Mr. Granger’s side continue to fail on every occasion to convince the CCJ to rule in their favour. You have to be mentally obtuse to not understand that Order No. 60 is exclusive to the 2020 elections and exist primarily because of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act, No, 15 of 2000, and the Representation of the People Act – Chp 1:03 (RoPA). Both of these sprangs of the law have been operating within the Constitution during this 2020 elections cycle.
These numbers being put forward by the CEO to the Commission is his personal and secret mathematical invention that lacks credibility and is illegal? What the Madam Chair is constitutionally bound to do is declare the real, credible, and transparently aggregated numbers that were arrived at, by a public process witnessed by thousands of Guyanese at ACCC. GECOM has those numbers by way of the 10 Tabulation Certificates authenticated by senior GECOM staff members during the recount exercise at the ACCC.
So I beg to humbly disagree with Mr. Norton’s conclusion that the CEO of GECOM is defending the Constitution. Rather what this looks like to me is a defense of fraud on the part of the Congress Place boys and girls.

Regards,
Sasenarine Singh