— AG

“The Chairman cannot invalidate the votes of the 10 Returning Officers already counted as valid votes; only an election Court decides otherwise,” Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams S.C. says.

He has based his position on the Caribbean Court of Justice’s (CCJs) written judgment on the Bharrat Jagdeo and Irfaan Ali v Eslyn David case, paragraph 46, in which it states: “…It is clear that, under the legal infrastructure governing the electoral process, unless and until an election court decides otherwise, the votes already counted as valid votes are incapable of being declared invalid by any person or authority.”

The Court noted that, in this respect, Guyana’s electoral system is not very different from other such systems in other Commonwealth Caribbean countries.

The AG had reason bring attention this information as just yesterday, reports indicated that Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh has set aside the declarations made in March 2020 by the Returning Officers in the country’s 10 Electoral Districts.

This information was made public by People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) nominated Commissioners and was later confirmed by GECOM’s Public Relations Officer (PRO), Yolanda Ward. It comes as the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, in presenting his Elections Report to the Commission, did so on the basis of the said declarations made by the Returning Officers, in accordance with Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act.

While the High Court had invalidated the March 5, 2020 declaration made by the Region Four Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo; his second declaration made on March 13, 2020 was never invalidated by the Court.

Those declarations and the Elections Report were placed in abeyance by the GECOM Chair to pave way for the national recount. It was public understanding that they would be held in abeyance until replaced by another declaration.

However, with the CCJ indicating that the Constitution trumps the recount Order No.60 in the areas where there is contradiction, the Commission is now divided on whether the recount data can be used to make a declaration.

The APNU+AFC believes that the Order created a new electoral regime and is therefore not in keeping with the Constitution. On that basis, it argued that the votes tabulated during the National Recount cannot be used to declare the results of the General and Regional Elections.

On the other hand, the PPP/C argues that the CCJ endorsed the Recount Order and that the numerical results from the recount should be used to make a declaration.

However, in the submission of his July 10 Elections Report the Commission, the CEO reminded the Chair that the national recount was not undertaken by Returning Officers and the use of its data would therefore be in contradiction to law.

At Monday’s meeting of the Commission, the Chair rejected this report and directed that the CEO present another report in keeping in the recount data and added that if he chooses not to comply, she would request such services from the Deputy CEO.

However, the AG has informed the public that the Elections Commission must be guided by the Constitution, the laws of Guyana and the recent interpretation of the said laws by the CCJ, which state that the Chair or anyone else, cannot invalidate or set aside votes already counted as valid.