-AG notes 2020 Election fraud accused still in court as new election nears

GUYANESE are urged to remain vigilant amid possible efforts to undermine the electoral process, even as the September 1 General and Regional Elections draw near.
The warning comes as several persons charged in connection with the 2020 election fraud are still before the court. The proceedings are unlikely to conclude before the 2025 elections since additional hearings are scheduled over the next few months.

Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, on Tuesday evening, emphasised the seriousness of the matter, pointing to ongoing attempts to mislead the public and destabilise trust in the democratic process.

“We are now facing another election. There is a likelihood that we can have attempts at reoccurrence. And that’s why we have to remain vigilant. The same perpetrators are around and that’s all that they know to do,” he said during his weekly programme ‘Issues in the News’.

He noted that the ongoing court hearings are scheduled for July 28, 29 and 30, while additional court dates are also set for September, October and November.
Several persons have been charged in connection with the 2020 election fraud, including People’s National Congress/Reform (PNC/R) activist, Carol Smith-Joseph; former APNU+AFC health minister, Volda Lawrence; former Chief Elections Officer (CEO) at the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Keith Lowenfield; former Deputy CEO, Roxanne Myers and former District Four Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo, among others.

These individuals face several charges, including misconduct in public office, uttering forged documents, and conspiracy to defraud the electorate by declaring a false account of votes.
The trial commenced in 2024 after a nine-month delay. Several key witnesses have since testified, including members of the Guyana Police Force (GPF), government ministers and local observers.

Minister Nandlall described the delays as a ‘travesty’ given the national significance of the case.
He pointed out that the prosecution should not be blamed for the prolonged proceedings, noting that it acted diligently and competently.
“You have been following the trials, and you have seen where the delay came from,” he noted.