Election observer grilled over statements submitted to police, COI

Mar 18, 2025 News

---

Elections Fraud Trial…

Kaieteur News-  The Elections Fraud Trial continued at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court on Monday, with election observer Rosalinda Rasul facing intense cross-examination from defence attorney, Nigel Hughes.

The proceedings, which lasted nearly four hours, led to significant uncertainty surrounding Rasul’s testimony and raised questions about the credibility of her statements. Rasul who is the current head of the Diaspora Unit at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, also served as a local observer for the American Chamber of Commerce of Guyana (AmCham) during the March 2020 elections.

Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty oversaw the trial, which began on February 19, 2025, after the accused entered their pleas. The defendants in the case include former Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield; former Returning Officer for District Four Clairmont Mingo; former Deputy Chief Elections Officer Roxanne Myers; former Minister of Health Volda Lawrence;’ APNU+AFCs 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. Rasul, the first witness to take the stand, was questioned by Hughes, who expressed concerns over the credibility of her testimony. Rasul admitted that her original statement had been amended and taken to Sophia Chote, the counsel for the Commission of Inquiry (COI), but this amendment had not been disclosed to the prosecution. Additionally, she acknowledged that she had given an oral statement, which was not included in her initial testimony.

Attorney Hughes expressed that such hidden information is a grave disadvantage that disrupts the  transparency in Rasul’s statements. “We are completely blind of the written amendment and oral,” Hughes stated.

Rasul further admitted to omitting key details from her testimony, including conversations with party agents on March 4, 2020, during the vote tabulation process at the Ashmins’ Building. She also acknowledged that she had not provided certain documents, including photographic copies of the Statement of Polls (SOPs) or audio-visual recordings involving party agents, to the police.

Under questioning, Rasul also revealed that she had spoken to the Chairman of GECOM, but did not disclose these conversations to either the police or the prosecution. When asked why she omitted these details, she did not provide a clear explanation. Rasul continued stating that she only provided information to the police and prosecution based on specific questions asked.

However, the defence continued to question Rasul’s ability to assess the credibility of the election results. Hughes asked if she had access to an SOP during the tabulation process to which Rasul admitted she did not, and is therefore not in a position to compare the SOPs used by the defendants with others members present in the room. She also stated that she was not in a position to comment on the accuracy of the results being announced by GECOM staff.

The defence further questioned Rasul on how was she able to obtain an SOP. She admitted that she had never received nor requested any published results for Region Four.  As such, the defence inquired if her report was made without referencing official GECOM results to which she responded, “that is correct.”

The cross-examination also focused on a bomb scare that occurred during the tabulation process. Rasul admitted that, when informed of the bomb scare, she had refused to leave the building, believing the officers were trying to disrupt the tabulation. However, during the incident, she was left alone in a room with PPP/C members, and no GECOM officials were present at the time. she also admitted that the SOPs were left in the room.

Hughes questioned Rasul about her actions during the four hours she was in the room with PPP/C members. However, he stated that she did not look at the SOPs. When asked what was physically stopping her from reviewing the SOP, Rasul initially hesitated but eventually admitted that nothing physically stopped her from reviewing the SOPs during that time.

Rasul was further questioned about the authenticity of the SOPs she had access to. She admitted that the SOPs had been provided to her by other election observers from AmCham, Chaitram Singh and Danraj Singh, but she did not cross-reference them with any official GECOM documents. “Chaitram Singh and Danraj Singh are the two election observers that gave me the SOPs,” she said.

Attorney Hughes then went on to inform Rasul of the ethnic divisions that occur during elections to which Rasul agreed to his statement.  As such, he had asked Rasul to identify non-Indian observers from a list of 66 election observers from AmCham. Rasul complied, stating that nine out of the 66 observers were non-Indian. Hughes then suggested that, based on her responses, Rasul’s statements reflected bias. “You stated that GECOM was doing something dodgy, you submitted statements that were not given to the prosecution, and you refused to leave the building. That was biased, and your organisation was biased.”

The prosecution, led by Special Prosecutor Dharshan Ramdhani KC, objected to Hughes’ line of questioning, calling it unfair to the witness and irrelevant. As such, Hughes requested the magistrate suspend his questioning, citing numerous inconsistencies in Rasul’s testimony.

Magistrate McGusty granted the request, and Attorney Eusi Anderson took over the cross-examination. Anderson also focused on the authenticity of the SOPs and acknowledged that Rasul had made statements to PPP/C member Anil Nandlall, whom she referred to as her lawyer. The prosecution again objected, clarifying that Nandlall was not Rasul’s lawyer but rather an observer.

As the questioning continued, Hughes requested that the trial be adjourned for the day, with proceedings set to resume on Tuesday. Magistrate McGusty agreed, and the trial was adjourned. In addition to the trial, the defence made an application for a visit to the Ashmins’ Building. This would allow both the defence and the magistrate to visualize the locations described by the witness during her testimony. The prosecution agreed to the application, and Magistrate McGusty ruled that the visit would take place on March 21, 2025. She clarified that the visit would be strictly for visual purposes and not to present any evidence.

The trial will resume on Tuesday.

(Election observer grilled over statements submitted to police, COI)

---

• COI, Elections fraud Trial, Guyana Elections Commission, police

---