–recounts raising 21 objections to the use of spreadsheets during Region Four vote tabulation on March 4, 2020

AN election petition is the lawful and appropriate method for challenging election results, according to testimony given on Thursday by Minister of Local Government and Regional Development, Sonia Parag.

However, she said the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) was compelled to seek urgent court interventions through injunctions amid the chaotic aftermath of Guyana’s March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections.

 

This was part of Minister Parag’s testimony during the ongoing election fraud trial before Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts.

Those charged include People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) member 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 at GECOM, Roxanne Myers and former Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica) Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo.

 

Also charged are GECOM employees 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.

It is the prosecution’s case that each defendant had a “critical role” to play in the wilful endeavour to inflate votes for the APNU+AFC, and deflate votes for the PPP/C.

 

While being cross-examined during her testimony in the ongoing election-related legal proceedings, Minister Parag, who served as a Candidate of Poll for the PPP/C in the 2020 elections, highlighted the legal process for challenging election results.

 

She acknowledged that Guyana’s Constitution provides an election petition as the sole, lawful avenue for contesting election outcomes.

However, she cited the extraordinary circumstances that arose during the tabulation and verification process for Region Four as justification for the party’s decision to file multiple, urgent High Court applications, to which she had sworn affidavits.

 

When defence counsel Nigel Hughes asked, “You were aware at the time that the process for challenging electoral results was by way of an [election] petition?”, Minister Parag, an attorney-at-law, responded, “Yes, yes.”

Hughes further questioned the minister: “Aggrieved parties had a specified process to follow if they wanted to challenge the results of an election?”

 

She responded, “Yes. But I cannot tell you in detail what that is.”

 

Hughes then pointed out to Minister Parag that her party did not wait to file an election petition, but instead went directly to the court before Justice Navindra Singh who granted an injunction on March 5, 2020.

 

That injunction barred GECOM and its officials from declaring the total vote count unless the tabulation and verification of votes cast in Region Four fully complied with the law.

The minister explained that the move was made out of a “matter of urgency,” acknowledging that what was filed with the High Court was not an election petition.

The defence lawyer suggested that the PPP/C had not followed the proper process for challenging the Region Four results. In response, the minister stated, “I don’t agree with that.”

 

This portion of her testimony expands on her evidence in chief from Tuesday regarding the contentious Region Four vote tabulation and verification.

 

According to her, the process was marred by allegations of inflating votes for the APNU+AFC; deducting votes for the PPP/C; disregarding statutory procedures and court orders and multiple attempts to rig the March 2, 2020 elections in favour of the APNU+AFC.

 

The conduct of Mingo, Lowenfield, Smith-Joseph, Miller, Livan, the other defendants and a female GECOM employee known only as Bowman has come under intense scrutiny during Parag’s testimony. She referenced national and international observers who at the time denounced the tabulation of votes as lacking transparency and credibility.

 

Minister Parag testified to discovering declaration forms on GECOM’s website, signed by Mingo, which showed a purported result for Region Four.

 

As a result, she said the PPP/C’s General Secretary Dr Bharrat Jagdeo filed a Fixed Date Application against GECOM and several officials, including Mingo.

She explained that three injunctions were granted, one of which was issued by Chief Justice Roxane George, SC. This injunction, she noted, specifically barred Mingo from declaring the Region Four results until he had complied with Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act (RoPA).

 

She testified that the court order mandated that Mingo complete the vote tabulation and verification by 11:00hrs on March 12, using proper procedures, specifically the Statements of Poll (SoPs), rather than spreadsheets.

 

21 OBJECTIONS

During continued questioning by Hughes on Thursday, Parag recounted her visit to GECOM’s Command Centre on March 4, 2020, where she encountered Myers, Miller, and Bowman.

 

She related that Miller and Bowman were actively involved in the tabulation and verification process for District Four.

 

Minister Parag recalled raising objections during the Region Four tabulation process, stating that the figures being announced did not match the numbers reflected on her SoPs.

 

“A decision was not made by the person I made the objection to. I made an objection to Miller and Bowman. My objection was that the numbers she was calling were not [corresponding] with the numbers I had on my SoPs,” Minister Parag recalled.

Parag testified that while Miller and Bowman appeared to listen to her concerns, they proceeded with the tabulation process nonetheless.

 

Hughes then asked whether she agreed that the staff had the authority to decide whether to stop or continue the process. Parag disagreed, stating, “I don’t agree with that.”

 

He followed up by asking whether she believed that GECOM staff were obligated to halt the process simply because she raised an objection. Parag responded, “Because of my objections, they should have stopped—because of what the objection was.”

 

The minister added that she reported her objections—21 in total—to her party.

 

Despite raising 21 objections, she testified that the tabulation process continued uninterrupted, prompting her party to initiate court proceedings the following day.

 

When asked by Hughes whether she had brought her party’s SoPs to court, Minister Parag responded that she had not, but added, “I can make the Statements of Poll available.”

 

Lead prosecutor, King’s Counsel Darshan Ramdhani, objected to the line of questioning, arguing that it was unfair for the witness to answer.

He argued that decisions regarding how the case is prosecuted are not for the witness to make, but rather for the prosecution and the police who conducted the investigation.

 

He added that, in any event, if the defence is seeking disclosure of the PPP’s SoPs, the prosecution is prepared to provide them. In response, Hughes maintained that his question was a matter of fact, not an attempt to influence the prosecution’s conduct of the case.

 

UNCERTAIN OF ORIGIN, AUTHENTICITY OF SPREADSHEETS

 

Under cross-examination by defence counsel Dexter Todd, Minister Parag said she could not confirm whether Miller, Livan, February, Babb-Cummings, or any of the other defendants were responsible for preparing the spreadsheets. She added that she was unsure whether the spreadsheets were official GECOM documents.

 

Minister Parag testified that the Chief Elections Officer had indicated that the spreadsheets were generated by GECOM. In response, Todd pointed out that GECOM is a large organisation with over 100 employees, and as such, it is not the institution itself that is brought before the court, but specific individuals. “You would agree with that?” Todd asked.

 

Parag responded affirmatively.

 

BACKGROUND

In the weeks that followed the March 2, 2020, vote, Guyana’s judiciary was inundated with multiple applications and appeals filed by various political actors over the electoral process.

 

The saga lasted five months before a national recount, led by GECOM and a delegation from the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), confirmed the PPP/C’s victory and ultimately led to the swearing in of President, Dr Irfaan Ali on August 2, 2020.

The recount confirmed that the PPP/C won the elections with 233,336 votes against the APNU+AFC coalition’s 217,920.

 

The initial elections results, announced by former CEO Lowenfield, claimed an APNU+AFC victory.

 

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/C’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.