Dear Editor,
IT is with colossal alarm that I note the pernicious “private criminal charges” against a statutory officer of rectitude in the person of Mr. Keith Lowenfield. Such is his reward for acting in consonance with the Constitution of Guyana. Should this travesty and perversion of justice be allowed to proceed, the same would be indicative of a decadence in Guyana and send a subliminal signal to any other person of rectitude that this would be their lot should they dare to do what is just. Such an occurrence would precipitate the complete dissolution of any residual sense of decency in the Guyanese society.

It is fair to conclude that the Chairperson of GECOM wilfully and venomously misled Mr. Granger to think and boldly and repeatedly make the promulgation to the world, that the four stages of the recount process would operate, then shift her position though she no doubt would have seen or heard him give such a proclamation concomitant with the requisite public assurances and call for calm and patience. She is bereft of any decency, having not made any known attempt to correct him, knowing full well that she wouldn’t act in accordance with an accord to which she is a party.

It must never be assumed that this has missed the erudite Justice Singh. Her eminent junior, the current chief justice (ag), formerly taught Contract Law to a well-known comrade at the University of Guyana where, she instructed her class that in executing contractual responsibilities, the entire contract is breached if one facet of the said contract is breached. Given the aforementioned, I am absolutely stultified that we, like hapless malingerers, fail to lay a counter charge on Claudette Singh while Lowenfield is relegated to the crucible for his service to the nation. Imagine the optics; Claudette Singh reposes unmolested (which suggests innocence), while Lowenfield is baptised by fire (which assumes guilt). Where are the private criminal charges for the chairperson?

This attempt to impugn Lowenfield’s character shouldn’t be allowed to proceed without a response in the way of legal proceedings against her. By the unashamed utterances of those who represent the PPP and their demonstrable, dastardly actions, we can deduce that this matter could lead to a treasonous charge on that good man if the PPP should ever come to office. The infamous cases of Mark Benschop, Oliver Hinckson and the military couple whose lives have been forever destroyed come to mind and should serve as poignant reminders. I beseech us not to be dilatory, lacklustre and forgetful. I urge, in the strongest possible terms, to do the needful and take the necessary action lest we falter again in the eyes of the electorate that is already demoralised and unmotivated. These persons have placed their confidence and future in our hands. I thank you.

Most respectfully,
Paul Cort, M.Mus., B.Mus., Cert. Mus.
Assistant Professor of Music