APNU/AFC incites CEO to violate law – PPP

The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) has slammed APNU/AFC’s Attorney General and caretaker Legal Affairs Minister Basil Williams for attempting to incite Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield to violate the law by not submitting his final elections report based on the recount figures as directed by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).

Williams on Thursday had stated that GECOM cannot direct the Chief Elections Officer on what to put in his final report.

This was after Lowenfield was directed by the GECOM Chair, Retired Justice Claudette Singh to

submit his elections report on Friday using the recount figures.
While the CEO eventually did not submit the report and instead asked for clarity on the instructions given to him, the PPP/C in a statement on Friday morning rubbished the remarks made by the Attorney General.
According to the party, the Caribbean

Court of Justice (CCJ) in its ruling on Wednesday had “tumbled” Williams’ arguments, one after the other, upside down.
“Just a day after that ruling [Williams] again shamelessly misinterprets and misapplies the law in his purported legal advice to Keith Lowenfield hours after he was directed by the Guyana Elections Commission to prepare the statutory Report using the total votes as per the Certificates of Recount… Williams’ clear intent is to attempt, once again, to incite and invite the Chief Election Officer to violate the law and commit another perversity,” the party said.
Williams does this, the PPP/C said, in spite of the CCJ’s ruling which declared the CEO’s unilateral acts, whereby he invalidated over 115,000 votes, to be in violation of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act.
The CCJ had stated: “By the unnecessary insertion of the word “valid”, the Court of Appeal impliedly invited the CEO to engage, unilaterally, in a further and unlawful validation exercise unknown to and in clear tension with the existing, constitutionally anchored electoral laws. That further exercise, which the CEO was quick to embrace in breach of the Court of Appeal Stay of proceedings, also had the effect of facilitating a serious trespass on the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court established by Article 163…”
The party contended that the AG’s conduct amounts to clear defiance of and contempt for the many pronouncements that the CCJ made in its Wednesday ruling.
“Needless to say, Williams’ conduct will be drawn to the Court’s attention for its action. Even at this late hour, Williams is still to comprehend that GECOM is an autonomous constitutional institution insulated from political directions and influences of any type. His untutored advice is, therefore, constitutionally prohibited. Moreover, he has completely misunderstood and misinterpreted the legal relationship between the CEO and GECOM,” the party noted in the missive.
This relationship, according to the PPP/C, is not a matter for speculation but is explicitly set out in the Article 162 (1) (b) of the Constitution and is also consistent with Section 18 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act 2000.
Additionally, Order 60/2020 states in pertinent part as follows: “15. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Chief Election Officer and every person appointed or authorised to perform any act or functions by virtue of this Order, are and shall remain subject to the general supervisory power of the Commission.”
On this note, the PPP/C pointed out that the culminating effect of these legislations is that the CEO is subject to the direction and control the Commission and enjoys no “independence” vis a vis the Commission.
As such, the party posited that Williams’ contention that Lowenfield can prepare a report of his own liking and not in accordance with the directions of GECOM is absolutely wrong.
“Under the Representation of the People Act and where there is no recount, the CEO is always mandated by GECOM and bound to prepare his report based on the declarations of the ten Returning Officers. Those declarations have been now replaced by the Certificates of Recount under Order 60/2020. Likewise, Lowenfield is bound to prepare his report based on those certificates and nothing else… On multiple occasions throughout its judgment, the CCJ emphasised that the CEO cannot unilaterally prepare a report of his own but must at all times prepare the report in accordance with Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act, that is to say, based upon the total votes counted,” the PPP/C stated.
To this end, the PPP/C called for the immediate compliance with the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act and judgement of the CCJ, as well as the rejection of the puerile and erroneous advice and opinion of Basil Williams.