Latest update February 8th, 2025 6:23 PM
Latest News
- Soaring gold price entices Canadian company to renew permits in Guyana
- Terrence Campbell accuses Govt. of weaponizing Police Force after calls for accountability with oil revenues
- China slams US as Panama quits Belt and Road Initiative
- Guyana extradites fugitive to Canada
- AFC Leader Nigel Hughes welcomes any investigation into lands he acquired
Court orders fresh start to election fraud case
Kaieteur News- Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty, recently assigned to preside over the 2020 election fraud case, ruled on Thursday that the matter will start afresh in 2025.
The election fraud case, which was first brought before the courts in early 2021, has faced numerous delays. The trial officially commenced in July, with two witnesses already having given their testimonies before Senior Magistrate Leroy Daly. However, the trial came to an abrupt halt when Magistrate Daly fell ill and applied for sick leave in September 2024 and the matter has now been assigned to Magistrate McGusty.
As a result, McGusty’s ruling has nullified the previous trial proceedings, meaning that the case will be treated as if it is being heard for the first time. She clarified that the court now faces the decision of determining the mode of the trial— whether it should be conducted summarily or indictably. The issue of restarting the trial had been raised previously, with the defence requesting a fresh start after nearly four years of delays. However, the prosecution opposed this request, leading the court to order written submissions from both sides to determine if the case should be retried.
Acting Chief Magistrate, Faith McGusty
Special Prosecutor Dharshan Ramdhani KC (King’s Counsel) advocated for a summary trial, while Defence Attorney Nigel Hughes called for a “de novo” trial, meaning a complete restart of the proceedings.
During Monday’s proceedings, Magistrate McGusty explained, “The submissions made by both the defence and the response by the prosecution in relation to the manner in which this matter involving all the defendants should proceed, at this stage, I have read the submissions of both the defence and the prosecution, and I agree that at this stage, the matter will now have to be tried de novo. The previous trial was basically a nullity, and the matter now coming before me. I have the discretion to hear submissions and act on those submissions in relation to manner in which the matter will be preceded, whether summarily or indictably.”
However, McGusty did not make a ruling at that time on whether the case would be treated as indictable, meaning the defendants would not be required to plead, or summarily, where the defendants would be allowed to enter a plea. She noted that, while the prosecution’s submissions emphasised a summary trial, the defence had focused solely on the “de novo” issue.
Hughes responded by stating that the defence team was in favour of an indictable trial, explaining, “Clearly, the prosecution anticipated your ruling, but we couldn’t. That’s why we didn’t make submissions on whether the matter should be indictable.” He further requested a short date to submit written arguments regarding the type of trial and other outstanding issues.
Prosecutor Ramdhani did not oppose this request but pointed out that from the outset, the court had identified three key issues: whether the case should be heard “de novo,” whether it should proceed summarily or indictably, and whether the Magistrate could revisit the charges against the defendants. “We (the prosecution) complied with your order, but the defendants chose only to address the ‘de novo’ issue… We came here today to hear that we had gone ahead, because no one could have anticipated what would have happened,” Ramdhani explained.
As a result, Magistrate McGusty explained that she would not be able to make a decision on these issues at that stage. She granted the defence team until January 6, 2024, to submit their written arguments, with a ruling set for January 13, 2024.
The case involves nine defendants who are facing 19 charges of conspiracy related to the March 2020 general and regional elections. The accused include former GECOM Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield; former Returning Officer for District Four Clairmont Mingo; former Deputy Chief Elections Officer Roxanne Myers; former Minister Volda Lawrence; APNU+AFC’s Chief Scrutineer Carol Smith Joseph; and former GECOM employees Sheffern February, Enrique Liven, Michelle Miller, and Denise Babb-Cummings.
The charges allege that between March 2 and August 2, 2020, the accused conspired to manipulate the results of the 2020 elections at the Ashmins’ Building in Georgetown, defrauding the electors of Guyana.
(Court orders fresh start to election fraud case)
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Due diligence on investments must become a priority
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- In 1985, the Forbes Burnham government looking for economic salvation, entered into a memorandum... more
OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus
Antiguan Barbudan Ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The upcoming election... more
Weekend Cartoon
