Election fraud trial: More delays as new magistrate considers restart, faced with new legal battle

The election fraud cases, involving prominent figures accused of manipulating the results of the 2020 General and Regional Elections, remain on hold as Chief Magistrate (acting) Faith McGusty, newly assigned to the trial, addresses a set of foundational legal arguments.
This trial has drawn significant attention because of the high profile of the defendants, among whom are former Government Minister Volda Lawrence and ex-Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield. Initially overseen by Magistrate Leron Daly, the trial began in July, but was paused following her extended medical leave, which has resulted in the trial being reassigned to Magistrate McGusty.
During a case management hearing on Wednesday, defence attorney Nigel Hughes argued that the trial should be restarted from the defendants’ initial court appearance. Citing the legal principle of De Novo (from the beginning), Hughes contended that since Magistrate McGusty is now presiding, prior rulings should not bind the new magistrate, thereby allowing her to review the case with complete independence.
“When a matter starts de novo, you actually return to the first day the defendants appear before the court, and decisions are taken there,” Hughes stated.
He emphasised the importance of upholding the defendants’ rights, arguing that prior magistrates’ decisions should not influence Mc Gusty’s approach.
On the other hand, special prosecutor Latchmie Rahamat proposed that the trial could continue from where two witnesses, Sonia Parag and Rosalinda Rasul, had already testified. Supporting this approach, lead prosecutor Dharshan Ramdhani explained that transferring cases between magistrates typically involves re-reading charges without resetting all prior proceedings.
“Once a magistrate or the chief magistrate determines that the matter should be tried summarily, another magistrate does not need to revisit that point,” Ramdhani argued.
The prosecution is advocating for minimal procedural resets, believing this approach would allow the case to move forward efficiently, especially given the trial’s already extended timeline. However, both prosecution and defence have agreed to provide written submissions which would help Magistrate McGusty determine whether to proceed with a fresh start or resume from witness testimonies.
Magistrate McGusty also faces the key decision of whether to try the case summarily or as indictable offence. The distinction carries significant implications: a summary trial would allow Magistrate McGusty to hear the full case and issue a decision herself, while an indictable trial would involve a preliminary inquiry to determine if the case should be sent to the High Court for a jury trial.
Previous magistrates, including Chief Magistrate Isaacs and Magistrate Daly, had determined that the majority of charges would proceed summarily, and two charges initially classified as indictable were later shifted to summary trial status.
Ramdhani has now requested that these two charges be reinstated as indictable offences, asserting that the earlier decision was incorrect and warrants reconsideration. Hughes, however, countered that the charges had already been reviewed and appealed by higher courts, therefore it would be inappropriate for the magistrate to revisit this matter.
Magistrate Mc Gusty has scheduled December 9 as a hearing date to address these and other preliminary issues, allowing both sides the opportunity to present further arguments.

Prevent misrepresentation
Amidst the legal debate, Magistrate McGusty has appealed to the media and public officials to accurately report on the proceedings in order to prevent misrepresentation of the trial. She emphasized the importance of clarity and caution, noting that any public misinterpretations could potentially disrupt the legal process.
Both defence and prosecution lawyers echoed these concerns, agreeing that the proceedings should be free from undue public influence.
With significant figures facing charges, including former Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, ex-GECOM Deputy CEO Roxanne Myers, former PNCR Chairperson Volda Lawrence, GECOM employees Sheffern February, Enrique Livan, Michelle Miller, Denise Babb-Cummings, and Carol Smith-Joseph, the case has drawn sustained public interest.
Together, these nine defendants confront 33 counts of election-related fraud, focused on alleged efforts to manipulate voting results.
The court will next review submissions from both sides on November 29, followed by the December 9 hearing, when Mc Gusty’s rulings on these foundational issues are expected to set the course for the trial’s restart. (G9)