–sets January 13, 2025 for decision on mode of trial

Acting Chief Magistrate Faith Mc Gusty on Monday ruled that the high-profile election fraud cases stemming from Guyana’s 2020 General and Regional Elections will begin afresh, setting the stage for renewed legal battles in the coming year.
Magistrate Mc Gusty explained that her decision vacates all prior trial proceedings by Senior Magistrate Leron Daly, who had overseen the case until her extended medical leave in August 2024. “The previous trial basically is annuality,” she ruled.
The long-delayed trial, which began on July 29, 2024, has faced numerous procedural hurdles, primarily due to legal maneuvers by the defence and Magistrate Daly’s absence, raising questions about the continuity of the proceedings.
Magistrate Daly’s absence had sparked uncertainty about the way forward, prompting Mc Gusty to take over the matter.

The defence, led attorney Nigel Hughes, argued that a “de novo” approach was necessary to ensure fairness and compliance with legal standards.
According to the Legal Information Institute, de novo is a Latin term that means “anew,” “from the beginning,” or “afresh.” It explained that when a court hears a case “de novo,” it is deciding the issues without reference to any legal conclusion or assumption made by the previous court to hear the case.
At a previous hearing, Hughes had raised the principle of de novo, arguing that the case should restart entirely from the beginning, now that it is in the hands of a new magistrate.
According to him, this process should include formally reading the charges to his clients. He explained to the court 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 by magistrate).

For matters taken indictably, the magistrate conducts a preliminary inquiry or paper committal proceeding to evaluate the strength of the evidence. Based on the evidence presented, the magistrate may commit the accused to stand trial in the High Court if the evidence is deemed prima facie. Conversely, if the evidence is inadequate, 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 would be heard indictably—requiring committal proceedings to determine if they merit 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 had 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 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.

Magistrate Mc Gusty, however, ruled in favour of the defence on Monday and directed Hughes to submit written arguments by January 6, 2025, detailing why he prefers the charges to be heard indictably rather than summarily. The cases were adjourned to January 13, 2025, when Magistrate Mc Gusty is expected to decide on the mode of trial.

Significantly, the prosecutor has indicated his readiness to commence leading evidence next month. The charges, which allege conspiracy to manipulate the 2020 election results, have gripped national attention for years.
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. Collectively, they face 19 conspiracy charges and are represented by a defence team that also includes attorneys Ronald Daniels, Eusi Anderson, and Darren Wade.
The defendants have each posted a substantial amount of cash bail.

If convicted in the Magistrates’ Court, the accused could face up to three years in prison for each charge. Prosecutors plan to call approximately 72 witnesses, including Minister of Local Government Sonia Parag, to substantiate their case.
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 prosecution’s case is that the defendants altered results for Region Four, Guyana’s largest electoral district, to favour the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) coalition. The initial results, announced by Lowenfield, claimed an APNU+AFC victory, but a recount led by GECOM and a high-level Caribbean Community (CARICOM) delegation revealed a win for the Peoples Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).
The recount confirmed that the PPP/C won the elections with 233,336 votes against the APNU+AFC coalition’s 217,920.

The APNU+AFC coalition received 171,825 votes, while the PPP/C received 166,343 votes, according to former CEO Lowenfield’s election report.
Following the PPP/C’s return to office in August 2020, criminal charges were filed against key election officials.
GECOM made the decision to terminate the contracts of Lowenfield, Myers, and Mingo in August 2021, after the allegations of fraud came to light, a move that was welcomed by many.