Election fraud case: Chief Magistrate to rule on December 30 whether to restart or resume trial

– prosecution & defence split over summary trial or PI

A decision on whether or not to restart the election fraud trial from scratch will be handed down by acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty on December 30, 2024, when the parties are slated to return to Court.

On Monday, parties in the election fraud trial into the 2020 General and Regional elections, attended a sitting of the Magistrates court before the acting Chief Magistrate. During the sitting, they were informed that the Chief Magistrate would rule on whether or not to resume the election fraud trial and just recall witnesses, or to start it over from scratch.
This decision in the four-year-long case became necessary after the initial Magistrate, Senior Magistrate Leron Daly, fell ill in August and was subsequently unable to resume her duties. Her extended illness resulted in McGusty, taking over the case last month.
So far, only two witnesses, Local Government and Regional Development Minister Sonia Parag and Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Diaspora Unit Head Rosalinda Rasul, have been heard by the court.

During Monday’s sitting, Special Prosecutor, King’s Counsel Darshan Ramdhani argued that a restart was completely unnecessary and that all the court needed to do was to recall the witnesses. On the other hand, Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes pressed for a fresh start to the already delayed trial. Ultimately, the acting Chief Magistrate decided that she would hand down her ruling on whether to resume or restart, on December 30.
In an interview with the media afterwards, Ramdhani explained that the state wants the matter to be dealt with by the Magistrate as a summary trial, unlike the defence which wants a preliminary inquiry held before a High Court trial.
“It is our hope that regardless of how the magistrate rules, the matter will have to start. Whether as a preliminary inquiry or as a summary trial. And we have been ready to lead witnesses, as you’ve seen in the past. So, we expect dates are going to be set. And we’ll ask for the earliest possible date in January, to begin these matters. That’s where we are,” Ramdhani said.

In his interview with the media following the sitting, Hughes meanwhile emphasised that the defence is opposed to the state’s efforts to secure a summary trial at the Magistrates’ Court. According to Hughes, “I think legally, the law is not in his (Ramdhani’s) favour. But whatever the court rules, we’ll abide by the ruling and move forward.”
Nine persons are before the court about electoral fraud. They are former Returning Officer for Region Four, Clairmont Mingo; former Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield; his former Deputy, Roxanne Myers; former People’s National Congress/ Reform (PNCR) Chairperson Volda Lawrence; PNCR activist Carol Smith-Joseph; and Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) employees Sheffern February, Enrique Livan, Michelle Miller and Denise Babb-Cummings. They are facing 28 charges relating to electoral fraud. Among the offences these defendants are accused of committing are: misconduct while holding public office; presenting falsified documentation; and planning to manipulate Guyana’s voters by presenting an inaccurate vote total.
In her testimony as a witness, Parag had recalled acts of misconduct she witnessed from GECOM staff during the 2020 General and Regional Elections. Her testimony included witnessing efforts by GECOM staff to alter the results by deducting People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) votes and adding votes to the then-ruling A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC).
She had also testified that despite a Court Order from acting Chief Justice Roxane George which compelled GECOM to use only the Statements of Poll (SOPs) to tabulate the numbers for the Region Four (Demerara/Mahaica) votes, Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, one of those now on trial, continued to conduct the tabulation using a projector and bedsheet.
When Magistrate Daly had presided over the case, the prosecution, led by KC Ramdhani, had complained that witnesses were not being allowed to freely testify as they should. At the last hearing, before she came down with her illness, Magistrate Daly had acknowledged that not allowing certain testimony was indeed an error. As such, she had permitted the reopening of the examination of the witness, Minister Parag. (G-3)