…court to hear conflicting positions from electoral body on Monday
Chief Elections Officer (CEO) of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Keith Lowenfield and Chairperson of the Commission, Retired Justice Claudette Singh are preparing to fight a case brought against the electoral body on Monday, but the entity’s two top brass are getting ready to present conflicting cases.
GECOM CEO Keith Lowenfield
The matter stems from an application brought by A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) against the Commission, asking the court to prevent the electoral body from executing a recount of the votes cast in the March 2 General and Regional Elections.
Lowenfield’s Attorney, Neil Boston, on Friday told media operatives that his submission on behalf of his client was that a declaration has been made and a recount by the Commission based on a request by political actors would be ultra vires.
Justice Franklyn Holder
He was making reference to the Caribbean Community (Caricom) initiative, which saw Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo and Head of State, President David Granger agreeing to a deal brokered by Caricom Chair, Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Mottley.
“That agreement between Granger and Jagdeo is ultra vires,” he told reporters.
Following the agreement by the two political leaders, an APNU/AFC candidate, Ulita Moore, moved to the courts to file an injunction against the recount.
According to Boston, the Elections Commission does not have the lawful authority to accommodate an unlawful act.
Asked specifically whether the Commission would accommodate a recount of the votes cast in the elections, Boston was adamant “they can’t do that, to do that is unlawful”.
GECOM Chair, Retired Justice Claudette Singh
He explained, “The count has already been declared; there is an elections court that will have to review all the evidence by the persons who were there to determine whether there was some unlawful act or omission which affected the results.”
The position adumbrated by the CEO’s Attorney is in stark contrast to the submissions made to the court on the matter by GECOM Chair, Retired Justice Singh.
Speaking to media operatives outside the High Court on Friday, Anil Nandlall, the Attorney-at-Law for Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, expressed optimism at the notion of a recount based on Singh’s submissions.
He said the GECOM Chairperson’s submissions that were tendered to the court illustrated that she has finally assumed her role “and has indicated in those submissions that she is prepared to discharge her duties under the Constitution”.
According to Nandlall, the GECOM Chair in her submissions reiterated that it was that entity that was in charge of the electoral process and Moore’s application should not be granted, “because it would force GECOM to make decisions that are not truly GECOM’s decisions”.
He said the GECOM Chair noted in her submissions that the entity has already taken a decision “that a recount of the ballots should take place, that GECOM has drafted an order to be sent to be gazetted and that she intends to give effect to that decision”.
Nandlall said too that Singh, in her submissions, conceded that while Caricom was intended to play a role in the recount process, the actual decision to facilitate the recount was in fact taken by the Commission.
Singh, in her submissions – a copy of which was seen by Guyana Times – observed that the most important order that was sought by the APNU/AFC candidate was that the recounting of the votes was unconstitutional and that the basis of the contention was that the Commission could not do so on the terms contained in an Aide Memoire signed by the President and the Opposition Leader, or at all.
Justice Singh was adamant, however, that once there was evidence that the electoral process was compromised, then to ensure the impartiality, fairness, and compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of any Act of Parliament, the Commission was constitutionally mandated to intervene to ensure public confidence in the electoral process.
“Thus, it is respectfully submitted that pursuant to Section 22 and Article 162 of the Constitution, with or without the Aide Memoire, the Commission has separate and independent powers under the Constitution to execute supervisory powers in respect to the electoral process.”
As such, “This means that the Commission can order a recount”. The Chairperson said in her submissions to the court, “the intention of Parliament was to vest GECOM with independent supervisory powers to ensure the fairness, transparency, and impartiality of the electoral process”.
As such, “it is further submitted that Section 140 provides GECOM with a further protective shield to allow the body to act independently and unfettered to provide the nation with a credible electoral process”.
Singh reminded too that GECOM had already given a previous commitment to the court for a recount, and said the undertaking accorded with GECOM’s role to ensure fairness, transparency, and credible elections.
She as such appealed that “this Honourable Court should not fetter GECOM in the exercise of its constitutional role and functions”, and added that GECOM “as an autonomous constitutional agency is guided by a legal framework and the decision to recount was in keeping with its supervisory mandate over the electoral process”.
