2020 election fraud trial: Court to visit former GECOM command centre on Wednesday

A court inspection of the former Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Command Centre which was used during the 2020 elections is scheduled for Wednesday morning as part of the ongoing trial related to the events of that election.

The case involves several former election officials and political figures, including Carol Smith-Joseph of the People’s National Congress/Reform (PNC/R), former Health Minister Volda Lawrence A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC), ex-Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, former Deputy CEO Roxanne Myers, Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, and GECOM employees Sheffern February, Enrique Livan, Denise Babb-Cummings, and Michelle Miller. Together, they face 19 charges of conspiracy related to alleged fraud during the controversial vote tabulation process. All defendants are currently out on cash bail. Wednesday’s exercise will take the Magistrate, the prosecution, defence teams and the accused to the Ashmins Building at the intersection of High and Hadfield Streets, Georgetown, where GECOM’s command operations were conducted during the 2020 General and Regional Elections. The goal is to revisit the physical space in order to contextualise evidence presented thus far, especially in relation to how vote counts for Region Four, the largest electoral district, were managed. Lead prosecutor Darshan Ramdhani, King’s Counsel (KC), informed the court that no interrogation or formal testimony would be conducted during the visit. Instead, participants would review the layout and identify locations of relevance to the events under investigation. He requested that the Guyana Police Force (GPF) assign a videographer to document the exercise for the court’s official record. Magistrate Faith McGusty, who is overseeing the case, agreed to the visit and noted her own recent observations of the building, stating that renovations may already be underway. She and the prosecutor both emphasised the urgency of conducting the walkthrough before any substantial alterations are made to the premises. However, Defence Attorney Eusi Anderson raised concerns over the structure of the visit and its participants. While he supported the visit in principle, he contended that the outlined protocol did not align with earlier agreements. Specifically, Anderson questioned who would be allowed to point out key areas within the building, expressing skepticism about the reliability of politically affiliated witnesses and asserting that former CEO Lowenfield, though most familiar with the building, should not be expected to participate in this way, given his position as a defendant. Instead, Anderson proposed that GECOM Chairwoman, retired Justice Claudette Singh, a neutral authority in his view, would be better suited to assist in identifying relevant spaces. However, Ramdhani rejected the idea of including individuals who have not yet testified, explaining that the law governing “locus in quo” visits exclude anyone who has not already given evidence.
So far, the witnesses who have testified include Local Government Minister, Sonia Parag, Diaspora Unit Head Rosalinda Rasul, A New and United Guyana (ANUG) representative Kian Jabour, and Assistant Commissioner of Police Edgar Thomas. During the elections, Parag served as a People’s Progressive Party / Civic (PPP/C) agent, Rasul was present on behalf of the Private Sector Commission (PSC), Thomas led the police division covering the area and Jabour represented ANUG.
Magistrate McGusty ruled in favour of Ramdhani’s submission, confirming that only those who have provided testimony would be allowed on site. She clarified that the accused will not be asked to give statements during the walkthrough but may communicate any observations to their legal counsel, who can then raise them before the court. Anderson also opposed to the involvement of the police in documenting the visit. He told the court that neither he nor his clients trusted the GPF to act impartially. Ramdhani objected to this blanket assertion, arguing that such statements undermine public trust in legal institutions. He referenced Rule Two, Sub-rule Five of the Legal Practitioners Act, which cautions attorneys against making unfounded allegations of corruption or bias.
Anderson defended his comments, stating that he was acting in his clients’ best interest and had every right to voice such concerns.
Prosecutors maintain that the Command Centre played a central role in the alleged manipulation of Region Four’s results, particularly through the use of falsified spreadsheets and the circumvention of standard tabulation procedures. Defence Attorneys, on the other hand, insist that their clients operated within legal boundaries and merely followed the instructions they were given.
Wednesday’s site visit is expected to begin at 09:30h.