THE trial concerning alleged fraud during the March 2020 General and Regional Elections continued on Thursday, as prosecution and defence attorneys clashed over the terms of proposed visits to two key locations linked to the alleged offences.
At the heart of the trial are two key locations: the Ashmin’s Building on High Street, Georgetown, which functioned as the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Command Centre during the elections, and GECOM’s headquarters in Kingston, Georgetown.

At these two places, votes were tabulated for Region Four—the country’s largest electoral district. The defence had proposed visiting these sites to provide all parties with a clearer understanding of the evidence presented. However, when the matter was raised in court, disagreements quickly emerged.

The prosecution, led by King’s Counsel Darshan Ramdhani, proposed that three key witnesses—including Rosalinda Rasul, an election observer for the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCHAM) Guyana—be present during the visit.
“If we embark upon the site visit, it would be the preference of the defence to have at least three prosecution witnesses present during the visit,” Associate Prosecutor Latchmie Rahamat submitted.
The prosecutor argued that her request for a visit to the locus in quo, is allowed under Section 44(1) of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act, which grants the court the authority to determine both the timing and manner of the site visit. Locus in quo is a Latin term that means “place in which.” It refers to the specific location where an event or incident is said to have taken place.
She also cited relevant case law to support her application.

Rahamat requested the presence of three witnesses: Rosalinda Rasul, Minister of Local Government and Regional Development and attorney-at-law Sonia Parag, and PPP/C member Bibi Mohamed, who served as a tabulation officer for the party during the elections.
She also requested that Rasul’s reexamination be postponed until after the site visit is completed.
Defence attorney Eusi Anderson objected, arguing that only Rasul had completed her testimony, which had not yet undergone re-examination. He also raised concerns about the impartiality of the witnesses, claiming they were affiliated with the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).

The defence further objected, instead requesting the presence of an “impartial” witness—ideally a GECOM staff member, such as its chairperson, retired Judge Claudette Singh, who was present during the elections and has knowledge of the locations and electoral processes.

Anderson said, “I am asking for us to be guided by the most impartial witness at the scene, who would have been the [Chairperson] of GECOM, subject to her availability and her time.”
He argued that the witnesses called to independently identify the locations at GECOM are Sonia Parag, a PPP/C agent; Bibi Mohamed, a PPP agent; and Rasul.
“So, the people who really knew where what was in an impartial way to assist you would be Justice Singh, all the defendants…” Anderson told Acting Chief Magistrate Faith Mc Gusty.
Magistrate Mc Gusty intervened, stating that, given the defence’s arguments, the site visit should not proceed. In response, Attorney Rahamat argued that Anderson’s submissions were misguided, once again referencing several case law to support her position.

“The application for the site visit was made in the prosecution’s case and the prosecution is entitled to say which of its witnesses it would like to be present during site visit,” she stated.
She said the court has the discretion to decide if someone else should be present at the visit, adding, “So, Your Worship, we can only operate within the ambit of the law.”
If the defence objects, Rahamat stated that the prosecution will adhere to the court’s decision.

Magistrate Mc Gusty again intervened, proposing that all nine defendants also attend the site visit.
She said: “The defendants will be there, and they can also indicate to their counsel if something is incorrect or not true. And, of course, the defence counsel can indicate to the court if there is any disquiet in relation to that, and the court can take cognisance of that.”

Anderson agreed with the magistrate’s proposal, stating that he would abide by it. The magistrate ruled that the site visit would occur only after all relevant witnesses had testified.
“If we take until December, we will go in December,” Magistrate Mc Gusty declared.
For his part, Ramdhani submitted that the site visit must be conducted in accordance with the law, asserting that the magistrate can only go to the scene in relation to testimony already given.

“Unless we have an agreement, it can’t be anyone but Rosalinda Rasul for now,” reminding the court that she is the only witness who has testified thus far.
Since the events at the two locations were televised, the acting Chief Magistrate requested still images, noting that the Ashmin’s Building had undergone changes since 2020.
After an extensive cross-examination, Rasul somewhat concluded her testimony on Thursday.

Minister Parag, the second witness, was scheduled to testify on Thursday, but an emergency resulted in an adjournment. The trial is set to resume on May 20, 2025.
The defendants in this case are former Region Four Returning Office Clairmont Mingo; former Health Minister under the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) government Volda Lawrence; and People’s National

Congress Reform (PNCR) member Carol Smith-Joseph. Also facing charges are former Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield; former Deputy CEO Roxanne Myers; and GECOM workers Sheffern February, Enrique Livan, Denise Babb-Cummings, and Michelle Miller. Collectively, they face 19 conspiracy charges and are represented by a robust defence team. Due to the charges arising from the same set of circumstances, the matters have been consolidated. Each defendant has pleaded not guilty to the charges and secured their release by posting significant cash bail.

The prosecution’s case is that the defendants manipulated the Region Four tabulation process in favour of the then-incumbent APNU+AFC coalition. Prosecutors plan to call approximately 72 witnesses, including GECOM’s chairperson, to substantiate their case.

Besides Anderson, the other defence attorneys include Nigel Hughes, Ronald Daniels, Darren Wade, Dexter Todd and Cassidé Nurse. The initial results, announced by former CEO 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 PPP. The recount confirmed that the PPP/C won the elections with 233,336 votes against the then ruling APNU+AFC coalition’s 217,920. The APNU+AFC coalition received 171,825 votes, while the PPP/C received 166,343 votes, according to Lowenfield’s election report. Following the PPP’s return to office in August 2020, criminal charges were filed against the defendants.
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. If convicted in the Magistrates’ Court, the defendants could face up to three years in prison for each charge, according to the prosecution.