Charges against GECOM Chair “below nuisance value” – Nandlall

…says DPP must step in, throw out charges

Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall has described the private criminal charges filed against Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chairperson, Retired Justice Claudette Singh as “below nuisance value” and called for them to be thrown out.

On Wednesday, three persons filed separate charges of alleged misconduct in public office against the GECOM Chair for varying matters concerning the March 2 elections and the subsequent recount process.
However, Nandlall told Guyana Times during an interview that the charges were an abuse of the court system.
“The charges are an expression of unparalleled ignorance and incomparable incompetence,” he contended.
The first charge alleged that the GECOM Chair acted recklessly and unlawfully when she disregarded the advice of GECOM’s Legal Officer on March 16 and the advice of Chief Parliamentary Counsel Charles Fung-A-Fat, SC, on May 17, that a recount process was unlawful and unconstitutional, and went ahead to gazette the Recount Order, paving the way for the exercise to be conducted.
But Nandlall reminded that GECOM is an independent constitutional body that has its own independent legal advisor.
“In fact, the Constitution insulate it from any type of advice, direction, or influence of any person or any authority, including the Government. So, the Chairman was under a constitutional duty not to be influenced by Fung-A-Fat, who is under the control and supervision of the Attorney General [Basil Williams] – a member of the Government,” he posited.

Nandlall went on to also dismiss the claim of the second charge that Justice Singh breached the gazetted Recount Order and its amendment. He argued that the decision to conduct the recount was not taken by the GECOM Chair on her own, but was in fact a unanimous decision of the seven-member Elections Commission, which comprises representatives from both the governing and main opposition political parties.
“There was no vote taken against that decision; therefore, it is a decision of the Commission and not the Chair,” he noted.
Regarding the third charge that accused Justice Singh of refusing to accept the reports submitted by Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, on three occasions, the former AG reminded of the recent series of litigations.
The CEO has consistently failed to adhere to the direction of the GECOM Chair to compile his elections report using the figures emanating from the national recount, and instead presented fraudulent figures for the Commission to consider.
But Nandlall pointed to the first legal proceedings filed back in March by APNU/AFC Candidate Ulita Moore, which was twofold: since the 10 declarations of the Returning Officers (ROs) were in place, GECOM was bound to give effect to the ROs’ declarations and, therefore, it was illegal for the recount to be conducted; and secondly, that GECOM could not pass on its supervisory powers to the special Caribbean Community (Caricom) team to supervise the recount exercise.

The Court of Appeal had ruled in that matter, Nandlall reminded, under the Constitution and the laws of Guyana, GECOM has all the powers to do a recount, and that Caricom must not supervise the recount; hence, a subsequent team came as scrutineers to monitor the 33-day exercise.
He further drew attention to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) July 8 ruling in the Eslyn David matter (another legal case filed by another coalition supporter).
“The CCJ examined the Recount Order (Order 60) and examined the recount process, and ruled that the Recount Order is lawful and the recount process was credible, fair and legal, and the results of that process must be used to declare the final results. The CCJ vacated Lowenfield’s report, because he did not use the recount figures,” he noted.
Nandlall also recalled that only last week, Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George virtually confirmed, as well, the legality of the Recount Order and recount process and said that the recount results must be used to declare the final elections results.
Applying these judicial pronouncements, the former AG asserted “…it is clear that these charges are an abuse of the process of the court. They are below nuisance value and the Director of Public Prosecutions has a constitutional duty to immediately, under Article 187 of the Constitution, take over these charges and terminate them forthwith.”
Article 187 (1) (c) states: “The Director of Public Prosecutions shall have power in any case in which he [or she] considers it desirable… to discontinue at any stage before judgement is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by him or any other person to authority.”
Back in April 2018, the DPP had used Article 187 (1) (c) to dismiss private criminal charges against Government Ministers Volda Lawrence and Dr George Norton, over the sole-sourcing of more than $600 million in drugs and other pharmaceuticals for the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation, and the rental of a house in Sussex Street, Albouystown, Georgetown to be utilised as a drug bond at a cost of $12 million monthly.
Days later, she also discontinued charges against Finance Minister Winston Jordan, Public Infrastructure Minister David Patterson, and former Public Service Minister, Dr Rupert Roopnaraine for breaching the Procurement Act in relation to the expenditure of $906 million in public funds on the controversial D’Urban Park Project. (G8)