Recount either lawful or unlawful – Norton
APNU+AFC Executive, Aubrey Norton
APNU+AFC Executive, Aubrey Norton

A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Executive Aubrey Norton, in maintaining that the National Recount Order cannot be upheld partially, said that Guyana’s electoral situation will remain disputed unless a resolution comes from the two major political parties.

Norton spoke on these matters on Tuesday while a guest on Trinidad and Tobago’s CCN TV6. With the recent ruling in the Misenga Jones v. The Guyana Elections et al High Court case that the results of the General and Regional Elections must be declared based on the data generated during the National Recount, Norton said that the APNU+AFC will be seeking clarity at the Appeal Court on how an Order could be both lawful and unlawful at the same time.

The Elections Commission had relied on Article 162 of the Constitution, and Section 22 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act to bring Order No. 60 into effect, but the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), in its ruling, said the allocation of seats in the National Assembly and the identification of the successful presidential candidate could only be based on the reports of the Returning Officers.

The Court said that Order No.60 had set out to determine the validity of ballots cast beyond “votes that, on their face, are valid”, and this was “in tension with the Constitution”.

Despite the fact, the High Court later ruled that it is the recount data birthed out of Order No.60 that must be used to declare the elections, a ruling that Tucville voter, Misenga Jones has appealed.

“We have to ask the question, ‘How you could look at one element of the Recount, and not look at all elements, particularly the Observation Report?’” Norton said.
He added that the National Recount itself was more than the determining of “votes that, on their face, are valid” —- as the CCJ said ought to have been —- but it was an “audit” as pointed out by the CARICOM Scrutinising Team. It is yet another deviation from the law in the Recount Order, which is still being upheld partially and this should sound bells of alarm, Norton said.

“We need to point out, essentially, that what we were involved in was a petition. And what a petition does, legally, is somebody believes that there were problems in the election, they file a petition, the boxes are opened and an audit is done. Essentially, that was done, so we have to argue that what should happen is that all elements of the Order should be taken into consideration, or else, what the Court will be doing is to facilitate electoral fraud,” he stated.

Furthermore, Norton stated that if the National Recount was not more than the determining of “votes that, on their face, are valid”, then the Commission would not have in its possession proof of large amounts of irregularities, anomalies and voter impersonation coming out of the process.

He opined that given the fact that this information is in the public domain, the Court should do more than knowingly allow the declaration of an elections, based on results that are not credible.

He contended: “The Court, I think, has the authority to say, the facts are out there, and we should address the facts so that there would be resolution to this issue. It cannot be a case of you saying to us ‘We know what was in the box; we know it was illegal, but just use the recount [data], put your opponents into power, and then you go to an Elections Petition.’ That doesn’t make any sense, because the data for the elections petition is already out.”

Norton said that Guyanese have lived under the “transgressions” of the PPP/C for 23 years, and are not prepared to rest their futures in the hands of an elections petition which could be brought up years from now. “I know at least for Guyana and for St. Vincent, we’ve had elections petitions, and they’ve taken years to come,” he told the public.

Though at least one foreign Ambassador has come out and stated that his country has a history of speaking out on democracy issues in Guyana and consistently, Norton pegged this as false.

“There is no comfort in ABCE countries saying that they will hold the PPPs feet to the fire, because they didn’t the last time when they [the PPP] were in power. Unfortunately, it is being dealt with in the context of law, and some seem not to want to look at the entire law; they want to be selective in its use,” he said.

Subsequently, when questioned by the programme’s host on whether the APNU+AFC considers itself as an illegitimate government hanging on to power, Norton said: “I do not see the government as illegitimate; I’m willing to accept that it’s in caretaker mode, but while you ask me that question, I’m asking myself the other question: Should we stand aside and let another illegitimate government come, using your logic? To me, that doesn’t make sense. What we need here is a resolution that involves all of us, so that at the end of the process, we all will feel comfortable, as Guyanese, that we have a legitimate government.”

He urged the public not to forget that there was an option for the nullification of the elections due to the significant challenges experienced with regards to the verification of the ballots cast as valid. However, he said that this option is being opposed by those who care not about the validity of the elections, but simply about regaining power.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.