India has added its voice to the numerous calls for an “early” conclusion to the local electoral process.
GUYANESE went to the polls over four months ago, on March 2, but they are yet to receive the results of the General and Regional Elections. “India has been closely following developments of the General and Regional Elections held on March 2, 2020. It has been more than four months since the elections in Guyana and the results are still awaited,” said India’s spokesperson, on Saturday.

As a time-tested friend of Guyana, India said it looks forward to the early conclusion of the electoral process in the interest of democracy in Guyana. India further hopes that the outcome of the election is respected by all parties. Recently, in a show of good faith, the incumbent A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Coalition extended an “olive branch” to all parties, which contested the elections.

The coalition said it is open to dialogue on a possible solution that would bring an end to the protracted electoral process. The official results have not been declared by the GECOM, due to a series of legal challenges filed at all three tiers of the country’s judicial system – the most recent challenging an Order (Order No. 60), which triggered a national recount.

APNU+AFC Chief Spokesperson, Joseph Harmon, in a public address, said: “The APNU+AFC Coalition, in the national interest, and with a view to maintaining stability and peace, remains open to dialogue with other political parties and stakeholders on the way forward for our country. The APNU+AFC Coalition is prepared to act responsibly to bring a resolution to the ongoing political situation.”

Declarations made by the returning officers in the ten electoral districts, as compiled by the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield in his election reports, showed a win for the APNU+AFC; however, when a national recount was conducted in accordance with Order No. 60, the figures showed a win for the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), but the process also unearthed massive irregularities and cases of voter impersonation.
To date, there remains a ‘legal’ tug of war on whether the elections commission should rely on the March declarations or the data generated by the national recount to declare the results of the elections.

On Monday (July 20), the High Court, in the Misenga Jones Case, upheld the national recount and simultaneously set aside the March declarations. The Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire, relying on the judgement of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), ruled that issues regarding irregularities during the electoral process must come via an elections petition in accordance with Article 163 of the Constitution, which gives the High Court exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate over such matters.
According to the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act, election petitions must be filed within 28 days of the declaration of the results of an election. But dissatisfied with the ruling, Jones, a Tucville, Georgetown voter, has turned to the Court of Appeal for relief on the grounds that the recount created a new electoral regime in breach of the Constitution and Representation of the People Act, and cannot be used for a declaration of the results of the March 2 elections. She is adamant that the March declarations must be used. A number of countries and international blocs had, however, called on political stakeholders to respect the recent ruling of the CCJ and to conclude the elections “without further delay”. The nation, however, awaits the ruling of the Appellate Court, which is set for Thursday.