-says latest challenge another ‘time-wasting exercise’

IN a scathing critique of what he deems a deliberate ploy by the defence to prolong legal proceedings, Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, has condemned what he perceives to be another obstructionist tactic in the already protracted electoral fraud case trial.

Nandlall, speaking during his weekly programme, ‘Issues in the News,’ did not mince words as he dissected the latest twist in a case that has been marred by delays and legal wrangling.

People’s National Congress/Reform (PNC/R) activist Carol Smith-Joseph; former Health Minister under the A Partnership for National Unity+Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) government, Volda Lawrence; former Chief Election Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield; former Deputy CEO, Roxanne Myers; former District Four (Demerara-Mahaica) Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo; and GECOM employees, Sheffern February, Enrique Livan, Denise Babb-Cummings, and Michelle Miller are accused of a number of offences, including misconduct in public office, uttering forged documents, and plotting to deceive the electors of Guyana by declaring a false account of votes.

It is alleged that the defendants inflated or facilitated the inflation of results for Region Four, the country’s largest voting district, to give the APNU+AFC coalition a majority win at the March 2020 elections, when, in fact, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) had won by over 15,000 votes.

All the defendants are on cash bail pending the hearing and determination of their matters.

During the last hearing of the case before Magistrate Leron Daly at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, Nigel Hughes, who is one of the lawyers representing the defendants, had contended that Section 140 (2) of the Representation of the People Act (RoPA) obstructs a fair trial for his clients.

This provision, he argued, directly clashes with Article 144 of the Guyana Constitution, which speaks to safeguarding the right to a fair trial.

Hughes urged Magistrate Daly to escalate the matter to the High Court for a conclusive ruling.
Special Prosecutor Darshan Ramdhani rebuffed these assertions, maintaining that the Act explicitly prohibits the release of such documents.

Underscoring the constitutional intricacies at play, Hughes highlighted that his clients like Mingo, Myers, and Lowenfield were acting on directives from GECOM, which points to the need for the records to effectively challenge testimonies.

In concurrence, Magistrate Daly acknowledged her jurisdictional limitations in handling constitutional matters and referred the case to the High Court for thorough consideration.

As such, the commencement of the trial remains in limbo, pending the outcome of the High Court’s determination on fundamental questions related to fair hearings and access to GECOM’s minutes.

CONSPIRACY

During his programme, Nandlall said that he is sceptical of Hughes’ newfound assertion regarding the constitutionality of a particular provision within the RoPA.

He underscored the irony of the defence’s 11th-hour revelation, stressing that the provision in question, Article 140 (2) of the RoPA, had remained unchallenged for years until now.

Nandlall expounded on the defence’s argument, which hinges on accessing the minutes of GECOM meetings which purportedly contain decisions to utilise spreadsheets in tabulating the 2020 election results.

“The law prohibits the production of those minutes… They must have known that. But they waited at the last moment. Why? Because there is a deliberate strategy if not a conspiracy to delay these trials.” Nandlall said, as he condensed the defence’s stance.

The AG during his programme, swiftly dismissed this argument, labelling it as yet another “time-wasting exercise” orchestrated by the defence to delay the trial.

He pointed to the defence’s prolonged silence on the matter, despite having ample time to prepare since the charges were filed over three years ago.
“These bright lawyers have now decided to say that they need the minutes of GECOM because, based upon the newspaper reports, the minutes of GECOM shall contain or should contain a decision of GECOM to use spreadsheets to tabulate the results of the 2020 elections,” Nandlall said.

The state has twice handed over flash drives containing certified copies of Statements of Poll (SoPs) and Statements of Recount (SoRs), along with video interviews. Several bundles of documents were also submitted.

Previously, Hughes had argued for the case to be heard in the High Court, given the nature of the proceedings which he claimed might infringe on his clients’ rights to a fair trial within a reasonable time.

Nevertheless, the Chief Magistrate ruled that despite the voluminous evidence and the complexity of the case, the court has been proceeding “expeditiously.”

FAILURE TO ACT

Nandlall emphasised that the defence had failed to act on this purported need for GECOM’s minutes throughout the extensive legal proceedings, opting to instead raise it only when a trial date was finally fixed. This, he said, indicated their deliberate strategy to delay proceedings.

“The first thing is the delay. As soon as it is fixed for trial, objection is made. Couldn’t that have been made three years ago? Of course it could have. These matters would have been ventilated, and the trial could have commenced. But they waited until the last moment,” Nandlall remarked, highlighting what he perceives as a calculated effort to stall the trial.

Furthermore, Nandlall debunked the defence’s contention by referencing past legal proceedings where the issue of spreadsheet usage by Mingo had been contested, including a ruling by Chief Justice Roxane George.

He highlighted the case initiated by Reaz Holladar in the High Court, where CJ George vacated and set aside a declaration made by Mingo using spreadsheet data as unlawful.

“The Chief Justice judgment was broadcasted live on Facebook and on the internet [and] widely carried in the press. So, nobody can say that I’m divulging internal secret information here,” Nandlall stressed, reaffirming the public nature of the judicial rulings on the matter.

In a meticulous breakdown of legal procedures, Nandlall dissected the magistrate’s obligation to refer constitutional questions to the High Court, later highlighting the failure to execute this step in a timely manner.

“The magistrate said that she will refer the question to the High Court. The magistrate has to refer the question to the High Court. That was since March 6. To date, no such question has yet been referred to the High Court,” Nandlall said, underscoring what he perceives to be a failure to expedite the legal process.

As Nandlall wrapped up his critique, he reiterated his frustration with the prolonged proceedings, underlining the need for a swift and transparent resolution.

“The judiciary is independent, and we will never interfere with the independence of the judiciary… I am simply reciting what I know and what I recall as the facts in this equation,” Nandlall concluded, leaving no room for ambiguity in his assessment of what he views as a calculated strategy to delay justice.