–Gunraj tells elections COI

THE Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the General and Regional Elections of March 2020, on Thursday, heard that the then Chief Elections Officer (CEO) of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Keith Lowenfield, in many cases, acted on his own accord.

Lowenfield blatantly made decisions and employed procedures in direct contradiction to the law and the will of the Commission.

This formed part of the testimony given by Sase Gunraj who sits as a GECOM commissioner on behalf of the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C). Gunraj held that position since 2015 and, therefore, played a pivotal role in the 2020 elections.

Perhaps Lowenfield’s most glaring misconduct as highlighted by Gunraj was his initiation and or approval of the use of a spreadsheet for the verification and tabulation of votes for District Four.

This action was not in keeping with the law or any of the procedures that had the blessing of the commission. Ideally, Statements of Poll (SOPs) are to be used for that process. The use of SOPs was employed for the tabulation and verification of votes in all other districts across the country.

Gunraj testified under oath that on March 4, 2020, after learning about the use of a spreadsheet for District Four, he immediately asked for a meeting of the commission to be convened. At that meeting, Lowenfield sought to justify the use of the spreadsheet as opposed to SOPs. Gunraj said that Lowenfield claimed that the spreadsheet allowed for efficiency and expediency. Gunraj even recalled Lowenfield’s exact words: “This was to speed up the process.”

When told of this yesterday, COI Commissioner Carl Singh noted that he interpreted that part of Gunraj’s testimony to mean that the CEO knew of and had apparently given his approval to a process that was not approved by the commission.

Gunraj said that indeed that is what appeared to have occurred.

The GECOM Commissioner said that after some discussion, it was agreed that the use of spreadsheet will discontinue and GECOM’s staffers would revert to the established procedure of using SOPs.  Lowenfield was tasked with the responsibility of making sure the decision of the commission was executed.

Gunraj said that he went down to the ground floor of the Ashmin’s building, to the tabulation centre and confirmed the use of SOPs. But then he noticed the development of other issues. The process stopped, this time because the GECOM staffers manning the process were “tired.”

Gunraj said that immediately, he made efforts to contact Lowenfield for him to address the issue, but Lowenfield refused to answer his call.

Gunraj recalled that in the absence of Lowenfield, GECOM’s Chairman, Claudette Singh tried to address the situation. She asked for the women, one of whom was pregnant, to be given a break.

Gunraj said that he later saw Lowenfield who had claimed the unavailability of staffers to continue the process. This was the case despite the fact that at all the times, it was the intention of GECOM to have the process proceed until completion. Nevertheless, Lowenfield claimed lack of manpower.

Gunraj said that he then pointed out the availability of a high number of Deputy Returning Officers (DROs) who were, by law, allowed to man the process. Out of the 70 DROs, at least two were on site at the Ashmin’s building, but Lowenfield refused to have them continue the tabulation process. The CEO said he wanted to make a choice out of the DROs.

This was yet another decision that went contrary to both the law and GECOM commission. The law does not allow the CEO to have his pick of individuals to his liking.
Another action taken by Lowenfield without the blessing of the commission was the deprivation of access to the GECOM Command Centre and Office of the District Four Returning Office.

Gunraj noted that by March 5, he suffered a deprivation of access to the building despite being a GECOM commissioner.  He noted that there became a heavy police presence at the parameters of the buildings and that he had an uphill task even making it past the barricades. This was also the experience of other accredited persons.

Gunraj said that the CEO is a creature of the commission and ought to act under its direction.