If anyone needed a reminder of the desperate legal antics deployed by attorneys defending nine individuals accused of fraud and conspiracy to subvert democracy in the 2020 elections, they need only witness the treatment of Kit Nascimento in the courtroom this week.

Nascimento, a veteran journalist, former cabinet minister, and seasoned observer, was called to the witness box by prosecutors to give supporting evidence that senior GECOM officials, in cahoots with political officials of APNU+AFC, conspired to steal the 2020 elections. But Nascimento was subjected to a verbal barrage from the defence attorney for several of the accused, Eusi Anderson.
A man of letters who is not known to be lost for words, Nascimento was brief in his answers, and Anderson used the opportunity to critique his responses. “Do you consider one sentence to be expansive?” he asked.
Our country is inching closer to an election, and Anderson is more interested in litigating Nascimento’s past than engaging with the testimony at hand.
Questions flew about Nascimento’s time in Forbes Burnham’s cabinet. “Between five and eight years,” Nascimento replied evenly. Had he managed any of the state entities listed? “No,” he said—his role was advisory, not administrative.

As Monday’s proceedings rolled into Wednesday, the defence’s strategy became clear – frame Nascimento as a political insider with ties to the current government. Yes, he acknowledged, he was part of a four-member team asked to review key agencies before the new administration took office. But as he pointed out, he wasn’t the team’s leader, had no oversight authority, and wasn’t paid for his contribution.
Then came the pivot to politics. Did he support the PPP/C in 2020? Nascimento asked Anderson to define “support.” He admitted to preferring the party’s policies, yes, but insisted that his role as an election observer was independent and impartial.

Anderson wouldn’t let go. He pressed on about Nascimento reading the PPP’s manifesto and tried to spin it as evidence of bias. Nascimento didn’t flinch. Yes, he read it. Yes, he liked parts of it. No, that didn’t mean he was partisan.

Over two days, the exchanges grew intensely heated. Anderson asked Nascimento whether he had compared former President David Granger to Idi Amin. “No,” Nascimento replied, though he did criticise Granger’s security arrangements at the time, calling them reminiscent of authoritarian regimes. Had he ever written similarly about President Irfaan Ali or Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo? “No,” he said.
Through it all, Nascimento remained composed. He sat through the storm of aggressive questioning, even as the prosecution stepped in with repeated objections.
For those who’ve followed his public life, this was vintage Kit: combative when needed, calm under pressure, never one to back away from controversy. His outspokenness on electoral fraud in 2020 and his role as a Private Sector Commission observer have made him a lightning rod, and now, an early witness in a trial that continues to test the integrity of Guyana’s democratic institutions.
As cross-examinations press on, the eyes of the nation remain fixed on Magistrate Faith McGusty’s courtroom, not just for a verdict, but for what it might reveal about truth, justice, and those who dare to defend them in the public square.

Sincerely
Nazim Baksh