prosecution, defence attorneys clash over evidence-handling, trial-conduct in high-profile case

THE ongoing electoral fraud trial concerning the 2020 General and Regional Elections took another dramatic turn on Wednesday as King’s Counsel Darshan Ramdhani, representing the State, raised serious concerns over the omission of evidence deemed inadmissible by Senior Magistrate Leron Daly.

The trial, now in its third day at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, has been marked by intense legal debates, particularly regarding the admissibility of certain witness testimonies and the recording of court proceedings.
The defendants are 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) at the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Keith Lowenfield; former Deputy CEO Roxanne Myers; Mingo; and GECOM staffers Sheffern February, Enrique Livan, Denise Babb-Cummings, and Michelle Miller.
They are collectively facing 19 conspiracy charges related to alleged electoral fraud.

It is alleged that between March 2, 2020 and August 2, 2020, Lowenfield, Myers and Mingo, while in Georgetown, conspired with the other six defendants and others to defraud the electorate of Guyana by declaring a false account of the votes cast.
On Wednesday, Ramdhani highlighted a significant issue: the exclusion of evidence provided by key witnesses, including Minister of Local Government Sonia Parag and election observer Rosalind Rasul.
The issue arose when Parag’s testimony implicated an agent of the A Partnership for APNU+AFC, an individual not named in the proceedings.
This led to the court ruling the testimony inadmissible, a decision Ramdhani argued could have far-reaching consequences.

“There are critical aspects of evidence being excluded, which could impact the case significantly,” Ramdhani stated in court.
He stressed that the evidence from witnesses should be allowed to provide a full account, including the identification of individuals and the context of their statements.
According to Ramdhani, this is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the events surrounding the alleged electoral fraud.

CONCERNS OVER COURT RECORDS AND VIDEO RECORDINGS
Another focal point of Ramdhani’s concerns was the accuracy of the court records.
He noted that while the trial proceedings are being video recorded, there are discrepancies between the recordings and the notes taken by Magistrate Daly.
As such, Ramdhani cited over 40 instances where he believed vital evidence had been omitted from the magistrate’s official notes.
“In many cases, there are vital pieces of evidence that seem to have been overlooked or not recorded in the official notes, despite being part of the video record,” Ramdhani argued.
He requested permission to review the recordings to pinpoint these omissions, underscoring the importance of a complete and accurate record for the trial’s integrity.
Magistrate Daly responded by clarifying that not all evidence presented in court is admissible, and thus not all testimony is included in her notes.
She provided the prosecution with the opportunity to review the recordings and identify specific instances where evidence was allegedly excluded.

DEFENCE’S RESPONSE AND COURT’S POSITION
Defence attorney Eusi Anderson, representing the defendants, raised objections to the prosecution’s submissions and questioned the impartiality of the prosecutor.
Anderson also expressed concerns about media coverage potentially influencing the trial.
However, Magistrate Daly dismissed these concerns, highlighting the independence of the court from media narratives.
“Mr. Anderson, we should not concern ourselves with what and how the media writes,” Magistrate Daly stated firmly.

Anderson’s objections extended to questioning the reliability of the prosecutor’s conduct, which Ramdhani vehemently defended.
“This is an attack on my credibility and professionalism. Counsel cannot be permitted to stand at the bar table and question whether I can be trusted,” Ramdhani retorted, urging the court to direct Anderson to withdraw his comments.
The court, acknowledging the prosecution’s concerns, adjourned the trial to Monday, August 5, allowing time for a thorough review of the evidence and the court records.

Both the prosecution and defence attorneys met with the magistrate in chambers to discuss the procedural issues, but no immediate resolution was reached.
Darshan Ramdhani has previously raised serious concerns about what he described as the “strange and obstructive tactics” used by the defence in the high-profile trial.
The trial, which began on Monday, has been marked by a series of motions from the defence.

Attorney-at-Law Eusi Anderson has made multiple requests, including for the original Statements of Poll (SoPs) and additional security measures for the nine defendants.
Anderson also sought permission to pay a visit to the site of the former Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM)’s Command Centre, claiming that these steps are vital for a fair trial.
However, Ramdhani countered that these motions appeared to be attempts to manipulate the trial’s timeline, and possibly gain media attention.
The trial has so far seen testimonies from key witnesses, including Sonia Parag, Minister of Local Government, and Rosalind Rasul, Head of the Diaspora Unit at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Rasul, who served as an election observer for the American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM) Guyana during the 2020 elections, is expected to continue her testimony.

The prosecution’s efforts to recall Parag to the witness stand and lead her evidence without implicating any individuals not named in the proceedings remain a contentious point. Magistrate Daly indicated that a ruling on this matter would be made as the trial proceeds.
Parag during her testimony on Tuesday revealed that Clairmont Mingo, the former Returning Officer for District Four, used spreadsheets for vote tabulation instead of adhering to the SoPs, despite Chief Justice Roxane George’s orders.
Parag testified that on March 5, 2020, she witnessed Mingo attempting to make a declaration based on incomplete data, leading to significant objections. The Chief Justice later issued an injunction preventing the declaration of votes without proper compliance with section 84 of the Representation of the People Act (RoPA).

Despite this, Mingo continued using spreadsheets for tabulation, prompting further objections from Parag and others.
The testimony also highlighted the tense atmosphere at the GECOM Command Centre, with Mingo and Lawrence involved in contentious exchanges.
The prosecution is contending that the defendants manipulated the election results in Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica), the country’s largest voting district, to favour the APNU+AFC coalition.
The official recount, conducted under the supervision of a high-level Caribbean Community (CARICOM) team, confirmed that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) had indeed won the election by a significant margin.
The trial, originally set to begin in early 2024, had faced numerous delays, primarily due to objections and applications from the defence.