THE 2020 electoral fraud trial is perhaps the most important legal case this generation will likely witness. After three years of delays and deferment by a team of defence attorneys led by the current leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC), the trial finally got underway before Senior Magistrate Leron Daly, on Monday, July 29.

But after just two days of testimony, it came to a grinding halt. To understand why, allow me to pull back the curtains and give readers a peek into what’s been taking place inside the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court.

As the lead prosecution attorney, Darshan Ramdhani KC has the onerous task of demonstrating, beyond doubt, that, between March 2 and August 2, 2020, the nine men and women facing serious charges of conspiracy to commit fraud did indeed attempt to steal thousands of votes from the people of Guyana and deliver them on a silver platter to former President David Granger and his APNU-AFC coalition.

Ramdhani’s first two witnesses were Sonia Parag, Minister of Local Government and Regional Development and Rosalinda Rasul, a former Election Observer and now Executive Director of the Diaspora and Remigration Unit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. Defence attorneys were given copies of their written statements during disclosure years ago and had ample time to prepare their rebuttals.

However, during Parag’s and Rasul’s oral testimony, attorneys for the defendants, Eusi Anderson and Darren Wade, incessantly objected to the evidence being presented. After the first day, it became evident that their strategy was to deliberately interrupt, disrupt and frustrate the coherent presentation of evidence and perhaps confuse the Magistrate. The Magistrate, it seems, was indulging the objections of the defence attorneys.

Ramdhani believed the Magistrate wrongfully assumed that Parag and Rasul must limit their oral presentations to their written statements and that any deviation from the text was perhaps hearsay. Daly promised to read up on case laws and return with a ruling as to whether witnesses are permitted to go off script and how far were they permitted to go. How much scope does a witness have when testifying in court? Ramdhani realised the futility of proceeding until the Magistrate issued a ruling. The same strategy was deployed again on the second day and Magistrate Daly failed to issue her ruling on the question.

On day three, the court was called to order at 9:30 am sharp, but, strangely, without the presence of attorneys representing the defendants. Ramdhani rose to address the court and said he was concerned that the magistrate might have deemed inadmissible testimony that pertained to statements the defendants made following the March 2, 2020 vote.

Calmly and without hesitation, Magistrate Daly said “all of those would be admitted.” But this was not Ramdhani’s first rodeo. He is an attorney with 30 years of litigation experience and if anything, he is dogged. Ramdhani is well aware that without a ruling from the magistrate, the defence attorneys will continue their ploy to stymie the presentation of important evidence.

He pressed on, asking Magistrate Daly to rule on whether his witnesses will be able to testify as to the conduct of “not only one defendant but whether those statements would be admitted against other defendants, whether present or not?” For example, accused Michelle Miller, a former GECOM employee, was unable to attend the proceedings due to a family emergency. Could evidence be presented against her in her absence?

Ramdhani began to explain that “when these third parties and witnesses who testify are unable to come to this court and name persons who they saw, being able to recite what they heard one person say, and what another person said in response…” A visibly annoyed magistrate abruptly cut him off.
“Were there instances where they were not allowed to repeat what they heard, in the presence of the accused?” Daly asked Ramdhani.

Ramdhani said yes. Magistrate Daly demanded he give examples.
“When Ms. Parag was giving evidence, a question arose as to whether her testimony was contained in her written evidence or whether it was an omission,” said Ramdhani.
Magistrate Daly disagreed. She said Parag was permitted to build on the foundation that was already in her written 12-page statement.
At this exact moment – 15 minutes after the court was called to order – Eusi Anderson, attorney representing the defendants, entered the air-conditioned courtroom with as much enthusiasm as he would for a class on ethics at university.

Anderson offered an apology and wondered whether evidence was being presented in his absence. Darren Wade drifted in nearly an hour late and when he rose to speak, failed to apologise to the court for his tardiness.

Ramdhani asked the Magistrate whether she was going to rule as to whether witnesses would be allowed to go off script in order to add information not contained in their written testimony.
“As long as the foundation is there in the statement, the witness is allowed to expand on it,” said Magistrate Daly. “Could Ms. Parag say, ‘I saw Ms. Miller there and could she say what Ms Miller said?’ asked Ramdhani.
“Ms. Miller is a defendant, the witness is allowed to say that,” declared Daly.

Ramdhani wanted to know why she had permitted the objections of defence attorneys.
“Yes, that’s in relation to the fact that she (Parag) omitted it in her witness statement,” said Daly.
In the back and forth that ensued, Daly was forced to admit that it was “an error” on her part not to have issued a definitive ruling before the court closed the testimony of Parag.

Magistrate Daly then said she would have to allow Parag’s testimony to be reopened. Proceedings went downhill from here.
“I am concerned that there’s a ruling on the record which seems to suggest that Ms Parag, the Honourable Minister, will be allowed to come back here and speak without hearing our submissions on the issue,” said Eusi Anderson.
“I decide what gets in and what does not. Mr. Anderson you should not come to the conclusion that the court will make rulings without considering your position. I’m not happy with you thinking that way of the court,” said Daly.
Anderson objection paid off; Daly backpedaled. She wouldn’t reopen Parag without submissions from both sides.

Anderson opened up a tirade against Ramdhani, accusing him of making ‘opportunistic’ comments to the media. “Can he (Ramdhani) be trusted with the sacred responsibility of continuous disclosure? If he comes upon something which is exonerating to my clients, can he be relied upon to take an impartial stance and deliver that evidence as is his continuous duty as a Minister of Justice,” Anderson ranted.
Ramdhani demanded that Anderson withdraw his comments. “This is an attack on my credibility and my professionalism, he has no basis to do that. I need your protection, your Worship,” pleaded Ramdhani in vain.
“I prayed this morning, and Jesus is on my side and for that reason, I will distinguish between beer and froth, and I concede that I am not froth,” said Anderson to the approving chuckles of his clients.

Ramdhani wanted to proceed with his witness Rasul but he needed Daly to provide clarity. Would his witness be allowed to name someone who was with a defendant at a critical time?
Daly shot back saying it depends on the circumstances and that some evidence might be hearsay against one defendant, but it may not be the same against another.
This was the crux of Ramdhani’s concerns all along. The experienced lawyer believed that anything a defendant said or did that serves the common purpose of the conspiracy, should be admissible in court.

“I had a witness stand in the box yesterday who was forced to say GECOM staff and could not elaborate. I have never seen this in my life. If I were to ask: Who are those GECOM staff you refer to? What can you say about them? The witness would not be permitted to answer,” said Ramdhani.
“You shouldn’t be splitting hairs about this; at no time was that denied by this court,” said Daly. Ramdhani firmly disagreed and he asked Daly whether she was relying on the audio recordings or her own notes as the official record of the court.

“Legally speaking, my notebook is the official record,” said Daly.
If the Magistrate was relying on her notes, why, Ramdhani wondered, was she not jotting down notes – 40 times – when Parag and Rasul were in the box?
“It means that I have concerns about the admissibility. I would just not sit here and refuse to write evidence that is admissible,” said Daly. “I am not happy that you will think that of this court. If I don’t note it, it’s because I don’t believe it is admissible,” Daly said.

Ramdhani was perplexed, asking the court, “don’t we have a right to know and an opportunity to respond on every occasion when you deemed the testimony of our witnesses as inadmissible?”
Magistrate Daly was now annoyed with the lead prosecutor. She offered that his team take 15 minutes to contrast the audio recordings of the previous two days against her notes and identify instances when she did not record testimony into her notebook.

It was going to take a lot more than 15 minutes to compare hours of recordings against the Magistrate’s notes. In Ramdhani’s mind, he had lost two days of valuable testimony.
At this time, Daly called a recess and retreated to Chambers. After a few minutes, the Magistrate was in a huddle with attorneys and half an hour later, she emerged to call a halt to the proceedings. She told the court that a number of issues had come up and that she had asked for submissions from both legal teams.
Stay tuned for what comes next.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.