By Svetlana Marshall

THE final phase of the electoral process, which is expected to culminate with the declaration of the Election Results and the swearing-in of the President in accordance with Article 177 of the Constitution, has been halted; it would appear to await a decision of the Court of Appeal.

Even as the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield was preparing to submit his Elections Report in accordance with Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act and the Order (No. 60) that triggered the National Recount, he was served with a Notice of Motion, which in effect blocked him from submitting that report to the Chair of the Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh.

Notwithstanding the absence of that report, the planned meeting, which was scheduled for 14:00hrs on Thursday, was held, but because there was no quorum, it was adjourned to 13:00hrs today. GECOM’s Public Relation Officer (PRO) Yolanda Ward later informed the press that the adjournment of the meeting was due to the ‘Notice of Appeal’. That matter will be heard at 13:00hrs today in the Court of Appeal.

The Appeal, which was filed by a private citizen, one Eslyn David, is intended to restrain the Chief Elections Officer from submitting to the Guyana Elections Commission an Elections Report, under Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution, containing votes which are not credible within the meaning of Order No. 60 of 2020.

The Chief Elections Officer, in his Report on the National Recount, had informed the Elections Commission that as a result of the anomalies and instances of voter impersonation identified throughout the 10 Electoral Districts, the elections, it would appear, did not satisfy the criteria of impartiality, fairness and compliance as required by the Constitution and Representation of the People Act. Justice Singh, however, while acknowledging that the issues were grave, ordered the CEO to compile his Report so as to pave way for the declaration of the results, on the grounds that only the High Court, under Article 163 of the Constitution, has jurisdiction to pronounce on the validity of an election.

Outside of GECOM’s Headquarters on High and Cowan Streets on Thursday, the Opposition-nominated Elections Commissioners expressed disappointment that the CEO’s Elections Report had not been submitted as instructed by the Chair of GECOM, and secondly, because the meeting was aborted due the lack of a quorum. Two Government-nominated Commissioners, Charles Corbin and Desmond Trotman, were not present at the meeting, due to various reasons, as was told the Chair.

A RARE INTERVIEW

In a rare interview with Elections Commissioner Bibi Shadick, it was explained that while the CEO had completed his report, he informed the Chair of GECOM that because he was served with “an injunction”, he could not present it to her.

“What Mr. Lowenfield was served with was a Notice of Motion, an application,” Shadick said by way of clarifying what trnspired, while noting that based on further instructions from the Chair of GECOM, the CEO was nonetheless required to be present at the meeting of the Elections Commission set for 14:00hrs. However, according to her, the Chief Elections Officer was a no show.

“We came… The Chairman was waiting for him. Mr. Lowenfield seems to have disappeared. Ms. Myers (the DCEO) came in there; she is sitting there. She told the chairman that Mr. Lowenfield is on his way, but apparently, he is like Jesus; he is not going to arrive just now,” Shadick related to the press as she expressed her frustration.

To further compound the situation, the Elections Commissioner said that there being no quorum, the meeting was adjourned to today, in accordance with the Constitution.

According to Article 226 of the Constitution, a quorum, in the case of the Elections Commission, constitutes the Chair of GECOM, and not less than four members, two of whom are appointed by the President, based on his own deliberate judgment, and two from among members appointed on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition.

Article 226 (5) (i) states: “In the case of the declaration of the results of the election of the President, the meeting shall stand adjourned to the following day, at the same time and place, and the notice of such adjournment shall be given to the absent members. And if at the adjourned meeting a quorum is not present, the members then present, being not less than four, including the Chairman, shall be deemed to constitute a quorum, and any decision made at that or any such meeting shall be valid in law and binding.”

At the time of the interview, the time for the court case had not been made public, and Shadick, in the hope that  there’ll be a meeting today, had made it known that “decisions will be made with or without a quorum.”

Asked whether the meeting would be convened in the absence of the CEO’s report, Shadick said, the Commission will follow the Law to determine its next steps.

‘NOTHING LIKE LOWENFIELD!’

“We will follow the law; the nation cannot be waiting on the likes of Lowenfield and them. Are we crazy? Do we look crazy? This country is hurting and bleeding, and the likes of Lowenfield is going to stop this whole thing!” Shadick said.

Weighing in on the issues at hand, Elections Commissioner Sase Gunraj confirmed that the meeting was adjourned due to the lack of a quorum. Like Shadick, Gunraj said that while there were reports of an injunction being granted, restraining the CEO from submitting his report, such was not the case. He, too, confirmed that the CEO did not turn up to the meeting of the  Commission, although he was asked to do so. Gunraj, Shadick and their colleague Robeson Benn were the Opposition-nominated Commissioners present.

Vincent Alexander, the lone Government-nominated Commissioner who was present, told reporters that the absence of CEO was inconsequential since there was no quorum. “There was no quorum, and so therefore, there could not have been a meeting,” he told reporters. He, too, had anticipated that the meeting would have been reconvened today for deliberation on the Elections Report.

Alexander said that while he saw reports in the press suggesting that legal action was taken against the Chief Elections Officer, he had no first-hand knowledge of the situation. He made it clear that as far as he knew, the report had been completed.