–as electoral fraud trial progresses

A HIGH-PROFILE site visit to the building formerly used as the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM) Command Centre is scheduled for Wednesday, as part of the ongoing 2020 election fraud trial.

The defendants include People’s National Congress/Reform (PNC/R) member Carol Smith-Joseph; former Health Minister under the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) government Volda Lawrence; former GECOM Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield; former Deputy CEO Roxanne Myers; and former Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo.

Also charged are GECOM staffers Sheffern February, Enrique Livan, Denise Babb-Cummings, and Michelle Miller.
They are collectively facing 19 conspiracy charges in connection with alleged electoral fraud. All the defendants have been granted cash bail following their not guilty pleas.
The site visit will allow the defendants, along with lawyers of the prosecution and defence teams, to tour the Command Centre, which was housed at the Ashmin’s Building, located at the corner of High and Hadfield Streets in Georgetown.

The purpose of the visit is to provide context and clarify operational procedures relevant to key elements of the trial, which centres on allegations of electoral fraud during the tabulation of results from the March 2, 2020, General and Regional Elections.
The site visit is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m.

“There will be no questioning or cross-examination—just pointing out positions, like ‘who was standing where,’” lead prosecutor Darshan Ramdhani, KC, told the court, while requesting that the day’s proceedings be recorded by a videographer from the Guyana Police Force (GPF).

Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty, who is presiding over the matter, noted that she passed by the building last week and observed that some work appeared to be underway.
Both she and Ramdhani agreed that it would be best to conduct the site visit now, before the building’s owners make any significant alterations.
“I don’t know if they’ve done so already, but we’ll see soon when we get there,” Ramdhani added.

While defence attorney Eusi Anderson raised no objection to the site visit itself, he expressed concern over the summary of the visit’s protocol as outlined by Ramdhani, stating it did not reflect what had been previously agreed upon.

“That’s my main concern,” he said, noting that there was still some disagreement over who would be allowed to be present during the visit.
He stated: “It is critical to determine who will be able to say where what was, and I think one of the things we were haggling about… We formed the view that Lowenfield — who, to my view, was the administrative head of that building — being a defendant, cannot be compelled to testify or point out [anything] while he is there.”

He said they concluded that the most appropriate and responsible person to assist with that task would likely be the most neutral GECOM official, the Chairwoman, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh.

Regarding those permitted to be present during the site visit, Ramdhani indicated that, based on his understanding of the law governing visits to the locus in quo, neutral individuals or those with vested interests should not be part of the exercise.

He maintained that such persons have no role in a site visit, as determinations about credibility and bias are still pending.
In his view, the only individuals who should be present are those witnesses who have already provided evidence in the proceedings, as their testimony forms the basis for the visit.
Those who have testified thus far include Minister of Local Government and Regional Development Sonia Parag; Rosalinda Rasul; Kian Jabour of the A New and United Guyana (ANUG) party, and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Edgar Thomas.

During the 2020 elections, Parag served as a party agent for the PPP/C, Rasul participated as an observer with the Private Sector Commission (PSC), Assistant Commissioner Thomas was the Commander of Police Division 4 ‘A’, and Kian Jabour acted as an agent for ANUG.

Magistrate McGusty agreed with Ramdhani’s position, noting that only individuals who have already given evidence should be part of the site visit.
The magistrate clarified that during the site visit, the defendants would not be permitted to give evidence directly. However, they could communicate any concerns to their attorneys, who would then be able to raise those matters with the court.

Anderson informed the court that he did not wish to make use of the police videographer’s services, stating that his clients have no trust in the police.
“I wish to put on record that I and my clients… we do not repose much confidence in the Guyana Police Force in respect of their impartiality, or whatever functions the prosecution is requesting that the police perform,” the lawyer stated.

Magistrate McGusty weighed in on the issue, assuring the court that all aspects of the site visit would be conducted in her presence, along with that of both the defence and prosecution attorneys.

A brief exchange followed between Ramdhani and Anderson. Ramdhani took issue with Anderson’s remarks, stating that it was inappropriate to make such a sweeping statement about the entire police force.

In response, Anderson asserted that he has a duty to represent his client’s interests, regardless of whether Ramdhani considers his comments appropriate or not.

IRRESPONSIBLE ALLEGATIONS
At that point, Ramdhani referenced Rule Two, Sub-rule Five of Guyana’s Legal Practitioners Act, which stipulates that attorneys must refrain from making irresponsible allegations of corruption or partiality that could undermine or erode public confidence in legal institutions.

Prosecutors have argued that the Command Centre played a central role in the alleged attempts to manipulate the vote count in Region Four — the largest voting district — by presenting doctored spreadsheets and bypassing established tabulation procedures.

Defence attorneys have consistently denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that their clients followed directives and acted within their legal remit.
The prosecution has argued that physically examining the layout and equipment at the Command Centre would assist the court in understanding how events unfolded during the controversial tabulation period.

Meanwhile, Magistrate McGusty was prompted to issue a stern warning to PNC/R member Smith-Joseph following a boisterous outburst in court during a legal discussion between the magistrate and counsel from both sides.

The discussion focused on the prosecution’s attempt to tender an additional statement from Dr. Josh Kanhai, a former Executive Member of The New Movement (TNM), which was undated and reportedly given two to three years ago.

The defence strongly objected, contending that admitting the statement at this stage of the trial would be prejudicial and unfair to the defendants, particularly given that their defence strategy has already been prepared.

In response, Magistrate McGusty instructed both parties to file written submissions on the matter and directed that the statement be “shown” to the defence.
Following Smith-Joseph’s disruption in court, the Chief Magistrate firmly informed the defendant’s attorney, Nigel Hughes, that such behaviour would not be tolerated moving forward.
The trial resumes this morning, with the magistrate expected to rule on whether the media will be permitted to attend the site visit.

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 People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C). The prosecution is expected to call approximately 70 witnesses.

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.