After years of delays, the high-profile election fraud cases stemming from Guyana’s 2020 General and Regional Elections is progressing under Acting Chief Magistrate Faith Mc Gusty.
The cases, which have captured national attention, have resumed with a fresh set of preliminary issues, igniting legal debates that are set to be resolved when Magistrate Mc Gusty delivers her ruling on December 30, 2024, at 10:00 AM at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts.
The matters were heard on Monday, during which both sides presented brief oral arguments on the preliminary issues. Magistrate Mc Gusty will now deliberate on the issues and render her ruling by the end of the year. The trial, previously overseen by Senior Magistrate Leron Daly, is now in the hands of Magistrate Mc Gusty after her predecessor went on medical leave in September 2024. The shift in leadership has prompted discussions on whether the case should restart entirely, an issue that could significantly affect its timeline and scope.
At a case management conference held last month, defence attorney Nigel Hughes raised the principle of de novo, arguing that the case should restart entirely from the beginning.
According to him, this process should include formally reading the charges to his clients.

Hughes relied on his written submissions and explained to the court on Monday that de novo means exactly as it suggests—it requires the case to return to the very beginning, as if the charges had just been read, with no prior determination made regarding whether the matter should proceed indictably or summarily (trial conducted by a magistrate).
For indictable matters, the magistrate conducts a preliminary inquiry or committal proceeding to assess the merits of the charges. After hearing and evaluating the evidence presented, the magistrate may commit the accused to stand trial in the High Court if there is sufficient evidence. If the evidence is deemed insufficient, the accused will be discharged.

Hughes contended that prior rulings by Magistrate Daly, including critical decisions about how some charges would be tried, should not bind the current court.
Magistrate Daly had previously ruled that some charges should be heard indictably—requiring a preliminary inquiry to determine if they merit a trial in the High Court—while others would proceed summarily in the Georgetown Magistrates’ courts.
The defendants also entered not guilty pleas during the summary proceedings, which were initially under Magistrate Daly’s purview and are now being handled by Magistrate Mc Gusty.
In relation to those proceedings, Hughes emphasised that these earlier rulings should not carry over, asserting that legal principles outweigh procedural expediency.
He remarked: “There is a practice driven purely by expediency. When people come to court…the [magistrate would ask them] Yuh want this matter tried in the High Court or in the Magistrates’ Courts? Invariably, the defendant, represented or unrepresented, would say get it done here [magistrates’ courts] for many reasons…the penalty is less and pure expedition.

In contrast, the prosecution, led by King’s Counsel Darshan Ramdhani, advocated for continuity, stressing that the cases should proceed based on decisions already made.
Ramdhani argued that the rulings, particularly on the format of the trial, were grounded in legal reasoning and should remain valid. Ramdhani also pointed out that reintroducing pleas and revisiting past rulings could create unnecessary delays.
He explained that while procedural restarts may be warranted for some preliminary matters when a case transfers to a new magistrate, the existing framework generally stands.
“I would urge this court that this has been the practice and should be recognised to be so,” the King’s Counsel submitted. He further noted on Monday that the de novo principle, if contested, should be addressed at the High Court level rather than in the Magistrates’ Court.
Drawing from his research, Ramdhani contended that jurisdiction over matters related to the de novo principle lies with a High Court judge rather than a magistrate. “If it is, for a moment, that you want to consider that we are not right, we say this is the case in which the court should not do anything but carry out a summary trial in these proceedings,” he submitted on Monday.

The defendants in this case are former District Four (Demerara-Mahaica) Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo; former health minister under the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) government Volda Lawrence; People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) activist Carol Smith-Joseph; former Chief Elections Officer (CEO) at the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Keith Lowenfield; former Deputy Chief Elections Officer Roxanne Myers; and GECOM employees Sheffern February, Enrique Livan, Denise Babb-Cummings, and Michelle Miller. In total, they face 19 charges of conspiracy to commit electoral fraud.

All defendants have pleaded not guilty and are currently out on cash bail.
The allegations stem from claims that the accused manipulated the results for Region Four, the country’s largest electoral district, to favour the APNU+AFC coalition. Prosecutors allege that these actions sought to inflate the coalition’s vote count and undermine the democratic process. Central to their case are key pieces of evidence, including flash drives containing Statements of Poll (SOPs) and Statements of Recount (SORs), approximately 72 witness statements, and official documents. The defence team also includes attorneys-at-law Ronald Daniels, Eusi Anderson, and Darren Wade. On the prosecution side, there is also attorney-at-law Latchmie Rahamat and several state counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The reportedly altered elections results, announced by Lowenfield, indicated an APNU+AFC win with 171,825 votes against the Peoples Progressive Party/Civic’s (PPP/C) 166,343.
However, a subsequent recount, overseen by a Caribbean Community (CARICOM) team and GECOM, reversed the outcome, revealing a PPP/C victory by over 15,000 votes.
The recount clearly demonstrated that the PPP/C won with 233,336 votes while the coalition received 217,920. GECOM made the decision to dismiss Lowenfield, Myers, and Mingo in August 2021, after the allegations of fraud came to light. Many welcomed this decision.
Criminal charges were subsequently filed against the defendants. If convicted in the Magistrates’ Court, the defendants could face up to three years in prison for each charge.