Parag questioned over repeated objections during vote tabulation

May 23, 2025 News

---

Elections fraud trial…

Kaieteur News-Minister of Local Government and Regional Development Sonia Parag faced intense cross-examination on Thursday in the ongoing 2020 election fraud trial, as defence attorney Nigel Hughes questioned her role in repeatedly objecting to proceedings during the vote tabulation process.

The proceedings continued before Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. Parag’s testimony focused on her role during the contentious tabulation process at the Ashmins Building in March 2020. She was pressed by Hughes on whether she had any legal authority to stop the tabulation, as she had previously objected to inconsistencies between her Statements of Poll (SOPs) and those being read out by GECOM staff.

Parag testified that she stood up during the process to raise objections, amounting to 21 times, after noticing that the numbers she had on her SOPs were not matching the SOPs being read by Michelle Miller. Despite her objections, she stated that Miller continued reading the SOPs, emphasising that the tabulation process should have stopped after an objection. “I made 21 objections… and they continued”, she said.

According to her account, the tabulation process initially started at ballot box number 4001 and continued up to 4021, before restarting again at 4001. She confirmed that the objections she raised were acknowledged, as the process was restarted. However, she noted that it was eventually paused again around 21:30 hrs when, as she put it, “the GECOM staff who was there—Michelle Miller and Bowman—said they were tired.” She estimated that the process had continued for about four to five hours before it was halted.

Hughes challenged Parag’s claim that she had the right to halt the process, asserting that only the Returning Officer (RO) had the authority to determine how the tabulation proceeds in the event of objections. “Do you know that only the Returning Officer has the power to stop the tabulation?” Hughes asked.

He then cited paragraph 84 of the Chief Justice’s ruling: “It would be for the RO to decide how he would treat with any objections or challenges raised. Even the PPP said that Mingo had to decide.”

Hughes emphasised that persons present during tabulation, including party agents, do not have the authority to interfere with decisions by the RO. Quoting further from the Chief Justice’s ruling, he said: “Such decision-making is not within the remit of persons who are entitled to be present. Otherwise, they would be usurping the powers and responsibilities of the RO pursuant to Section 84.” He pressed Parag again, asking: “So do you accept that no matter what the GECOM official’s decision was—right or wrong—when looking in retrospect, they were entitled to make that decision on objections?”

Parag responded, “Yes, I accept the RO did make the decision.”

Parag was also questioned on whether the PPP/C had made any formal written requests regarding the SOPs before March 5, 2020.  She admitted that there were no documented requests prior to that date and that she had not seen any written correspondence before the court proceedings, acknowledging a lack of proper documentation. Although Parag claimed to have alerted then-Elections Agent Zulfikar Mustapha and sought his intervention during the disputed tabulation, she conceded during cross-examination that she failed to document the events, providing neither photographic nor audio evidence, and bringing no SOPs to court.

She recounted that the tabulation process at Ashmins Building began on March 3, 2020. On March 5, Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo attempted to declare results using a spreadsheet instead of the SOPs, which triggered strong objections from PPP/C agents. Describing the scene, Parag said:

“There was a lot of chaos and shouting, to a point where Mingo’s voice could not be heard.” Despite the commotion, she testified that Mingo went ahead and declared results using a spreadsheet, in direct violation of a court order that mandated the use of SOPs for the tabulation process.

During cross-examination in the ongoing election fraud trial, defence attorney Dexter Todd questioned Parag about the origin and use of a spreadsheet allegedly used by GECOM officials during the 2020 election tabulation process. Todd questioned her ability to identify specific SOPs and serial numbers linked to ballot boxes. She was unable to provide a definitive answer regarding any particular SOP.

When asked about the official declaration of the election results in March, April, or May 2020, Parag admitted she could not recall the exact dates or details. The case involves several high-profile defendants: former Chief Elections Officer of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Keith Lowenfield; former Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo; former Deputy Chief Elections Officer, Roxanne Myers; former Minister of Health, Volda Lawrence; APNU+AFC Chief Scrutineer, Carol Smith-Joseph; and former GECOM staff members, Sheffern February, Enrique Livan, Michelle Miller, and Denise Babb-Cummings. The group is accused of conspiring to rig the March 2, 2020 elections, specifically in relation to events at the Ashmins Building in Georgetown. The proceeding concluded and will be continued today at 9:30 hrs.

---

---