Elections fraud case trial delayed again

Mar 08, 2024 Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

…as request for GECOM minutes for High Court deliberation

Kaieteur News – The trial into the 2020 elections fraud case, scheduled to begin on Monday after a three-year delay is again interrupted.

The delay in the start of the trial is a result of Senior Magistrate Leron Daly requesting constitutional guidance from the High Court based on an application by defence counsel, Nigel Hughes for minutes from the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM) meetings for the correspondent period.

On Wednesday, Magistrate Daly after considering Hughes’ argument and listening to submissions by Special Prosecutor Darshan Ramdhani KC, ruled that Hughes’ contention that the absence of the GECOM minutes for the period in question would result in an unfair trial to his clients has some merit. As a result, she ruled that the matter be referred to the High Court for determination and adjourned the case until April 2, 2024.

Criminal charges were brought against several former officials of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), as well as two People’s National Congress/Reform (PNCR) members in relation to the alleged attempt to rig the March 2020 General and Regional Elections and the events that followed.

Those charged for elections fraud are: former GECOM Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, Deputy Chief Elections Officer (DCEO), Roxanne Myers, former District Four (Demerara-Mahaica) Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, PNC/R members, Volda Lawrence, and Carol Smith-Joseph and other GECOM employees, Sheffern February, Enrique Livan, Denise Bobb-Cummings and Michelle Miller.

Hughes is representing Lowenfield, Myers and Mingo.

On Monday, Hughes requested access to the GECOM Minutes which was objected to by the Special Prosecutor who posited that the request by the defence attorney should have been made two years prior. He said too that Section 140 of the Representation of the People’s Act (ROPA) prohibits the use of GECOM’s decisions or communication in court proceedings.

However, the defence attorney told the court that Section 140 (2) of the ROPA contradicts Articles 144 and 149 (D) of the Constitution which speaks to the right to a fair trial.

In response to Hughes’ submission, Magistrate Daly said that the argument has merit and noted that Article 153 of the Constitution allows a magistrate who is confronted with a constitutional issue to refer it to the High Court unless the said issue is deemed to be frivolous or vexatious.

Further, Magistrate Daly said she did not find the defence attorney’s submission frivolous while noting that the defendants have a right to cross examine themselves and present on their case, and based on those circumstances she referred the submission to the High Court.

constitutional consideration, Elections, fraud, High Court, referred

Latest News