…says acted in conformity with the laws
— urges critics to carefully read the Constitution

WHILE some in the political arena have set out to chastise Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, for his submission of an elections report which eliminated votes unable to be verified as valid, the CEO made clear his position on Friday that his actions remain in keeping with the Constitution.

The most recent developments in the Guyana elections situation saw Lowenfield submitting his elections report to the Chairman of the Guyana Election Commission (GECOM) on June 23, utilising only valid votes as ordered by the Court of Appeal.

His report showed victory for the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) by more than 5,000 votes and the rejection of over 100,000 votes which were tainted with irregularities, anomalies or voter impersonation.

Lowenfield’s report wasn’t taken lightly by the main Opposition, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP), and representatives of the Regional and International community. While these groups have noted irregularities coming out of the elections, they prefer that the main objector, the APNU+AFC, take up the matter by way of election petition but only after the recount data, as it is, is declared. Much criticism has also come to the CEO for the submission of his report; such action being considered illegal.

However, by way of a statement on Friday, Lowenfield called on his critics to re-read the portion of the Constitution of Guyana which speaks to his responsibilities and, this time, in its entirety.

“I have noted the contents of an article published in the Friday, June 26, 2020 edition of the Stabroek News under the caption, ‘Lowenfield report seen as clear act of insubordination’. The source who articulated that position seems to have only read the Constitution in part, conveniently, and failed to recognise the sections that dictate the functions of the Chief Elections Officer. While the Commission makes certain policy decisions and provides guidance to the Chief Elections Officer for implementation by the Secretariat, I have to execute my duties as a Constitutional Officer, particularly in the conduct of Elections”, the CEO stated.

He added: “The contents of the Stabroek News article suggests that the CEO must only act as the Commission instructs and flout the Constitutional requirements. At all times, I have acted in conformity with the laws and therefore my action cannot be ‘seen as clear act of insubordination’ as articulated in the ill-informed Stabroek News article.”

Utilising valid votes, as ordered by the Court of Appeal, the CEO, on June 23, submitted his Election Report which saw the APNU+AFC securing 171,825 valid votes and the PPP/C, 166, 343 valid votes. In his Report to the Chairman of GECOM, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, Lowenfield stated: “I have taken note of the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Eslyn David v Chief Elections Officer et al in the preparation of my Report under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act and providing advice as required by Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.” The upset over his report comes as the PPP/C is contending that the ballots as counted during the first phase of the recount process should be declared and any alleged or evident irregularities or anomalies should be taken up by election petition after the declaration. On the other hand, the governing APNU+AFC coalition is contending that the Order which paved the way for the national recount mandated that the ballots issued be reconciled with ballots cast based on a number of statutory documents. The absence of many of such documents during the physical count has resulted in the party’s argument that over 200,000 ballots have been compromised and cannot be validated.