— UN’s Mikiko Tanaka urges Guyanese as they await elections results

Resident Coordinator of the United Nations in Guyana, Ms. Mikiko Tanaka has urged political leaders to help keep the peace and wait the decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice on the March 2, 2020 elections.

“As the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice is awaited, we call on all political leaders and their supporters to remain patient and refrain from acts and remarks that could incite hostility or violence,” Tanaka said in a terse statement Friday morning. She added: I would like to reiterate the United Nations’ commitment to continue to support the people of Guyana.”

President David Granger only this week commented that a new President cannot be sworn in, nor can a President concede unless the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) makes a declaration in favour of either of the situations. Speaking on the sidelines of a ceremony at State House on Wednesday, President David Granger responded to questions in relation to the same from reporters. He noted that while it has been over 17 weeks since the March 2, 2020 General and Regional elections and though the elections have gone on for longer than anyone would hope, he cannot act in the said regard until GECOM does its part.

“The Executive branch of Government does not have a role in managing elections. That role is given unto the Constitution, exclusively, explicitly to the Elections Commission. I cannot claim victory, which I have not done, and I cannot concede defeat, which I have not done, unless I’m notified, formally, by the Chairman of the Elections Commission,” he said.

Before the commission can conclude the elections with a declaration, the current elections matter before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) must also be concluded. The CCJ must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to rule on the matter which was previously ruled upon by Guyana’s Court of Appeal and noted, in the Article 177 (4) of the Constitution, to be final. Should the CCJ determine, nonetheless, that is has jurisdiction, it could lead to a ruling on whether the Appellate Court had jurisdiction to rule on the matter as brought to the CCJ by the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C).

Until then and until the commission makes a declaration, the President has encouraged all those making premature comments to exercise patience. He said: “I don’t know what the Elections Commission will declare. Like all Guyanese, we’ve been subject to various reports but the only authentic report will come from the Chairman of the Elections Commission to me and that has not happened. In that regard, I encourage all the spokespersons and commentators to wait, patiently, on the Chairman of the Elections Commission who, when she is ready, will make a declaration and, as I’ve said before, I’ll abide by that declaration.”
Next Wednesday, the CCJ will hand down its decision on whether it can assume jurisdiction in a challenge seeking to set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeal that the election of the President must be on the basis of “valid votes.”

President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders, who led a panel of five judges, made the announcement on Wednesday (July 1) after hearing more than five hours of legal arguments virtually on whether the CCJ has jurisdiction to hear the case filed by People’s Progressive Party/Civic’s (PPP/C’s) General Secretary, Bharrat Jagdeo and Presidential Candidate, Irfaan Ali; and if it has jurisdiction, whether the Court of Appeal’s decision that the words “more voters are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution are interpreted to mean “more valid votes are cast,” should be upheld or set aside. The ruling will be delivered at 15:00hrs on Wednesday, July 8, 2020.

The other judges in the case were Justice Jacob Wit, Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Justice Denys Barrow and Justice Peter Jamadar – all of whom appeared virtually.
In his oral submission to the panel of judges, Guyana’s Attorney General, while maintaining that the CCJ has absolutely no jurisdiction to hear an appeal to the decision of the Court of Appeal made under Article 177 (4), explained that it was widespread anomalies and cases of voter impersonation that warranted a clear indication that the President ought to be elected on the basis of “valid votes.”

“The reason for introducing valid in Article 177 (2) (b) is simple, fraudulent votes. The elections produced fraud of an unprecedented scale in the history of elections in Guyana and therefore every precaution had to be taken to ensure that in the Presidential Elections also, in Article 177 [(2) (b)], that if more votes are cast, should be crystalised,” the Attorney General explained.

At the time, he was offering clarification in response to a series of questions posed by the President of the CCJ, in addition to Justice Jacob Wit and Justice Jamadar. The judges had asked whether a President could be elected on the basis of “invalid votes,” in their quest to understand the reason behind Eslyn David’s request, in her Notice of Motion to the Court of Appeal, for there to be an interpretation of the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b).