Lawyer expresses fear over Lowenfield’s access to sensitive evidential documents

…released on $450,000 bail on criminal charges

High drama unfolded at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts on Friday morning when embattled Chief Elections Officer of the Guyana Elections Commission, Keith Lowenfield made his first court appearance to answer to criminal charges filed by two private citizens.

The case was brought forward by private citizens Desmond Morian and Daniel Kanhai – both of whom are represented by Attorney Glenn Hanoman.
Lowenfield, who was represented by Attorney Nigel Hughes and Neil Boston, SC appeared before Magistrate Faith Mc Gusty. He was slapped with three private criminal charges regarding conspiracy to commit fraud, misconduct in public office and breach of trust.
On July 3, the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts issued a summons for the CEO after marshals could not find him to serve him with notice of the case. However, it took over three weeks before he was officially served on July 23.

Kanhai, a member of The New Movement Party, filed a charge which stated that between March 5 and June 23, 2020, the CEO conspired with person(s) unknown to commit the common law offence of fraud when he submitted his Election Report dated June 23 to include figures that altered the results of the elections.
Meanwhile, Morian contended that Lowenfield, while performing his duties as CEO of GECOM, ascertained the results of the March 2 elections “knowing the said results to be false, the said wilful misconduct amounting to a breach of the public’s trust in the office which he presides.

When those two charges came up for hearing before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts on July 3, Lowenfield was a no-show.
Following that court session, Morian filed another private criminal charge, contending that Lowenfield conspired with a person or persons unknown to use Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo’s fraudulent figures to prepare a report that was submitted to the Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Retired Justice Claudette Singh, back in March.
He was not required to plead to the indictable charges. He was released on $150,000 for each of the charges, amounting to $450,000. The matter will continue on August 14.
After the matter concluded, Lowenfield made a lowkey exit while Senior Counsel Boston told media operatives that his client was “disappointed” that he was brought before the court for “something that he has not done”.

Sensitive evidential documents
On the other hand, Kanhai and his attorney were forced to leave the court in haste, after encountering a mob of supporters from the APNU/AFC coalition.
However, Hanoman later told Guyana Times in a telephone interview that they have compelling evidence to support the charges filed against the GECOM official. These statements came after Boston hurled allegations that the litigants were unprepared. On the other hand, Hanoman also dispelled allegations that his arguments were politicised.

“I am a lawyer with no political affiliation. I was hired to do a job. They were all legal arguments in court but they’re trying to politicise it. Of course, the charges have ramifications politically… This is a serious criminal offence,” the attorney said.
He added, “He went outside and said we’re not ready [and] we’re still investigating. That is far from the case. We’ve already investigated and we have compelling evidence that can establish the offence.”
Hanoman said a request was made for Lowenfield’s passport to be lodged as a condition of this bail since he has means to leave this jurisdiction. This was denied, along with the request for a substantial sum to be set for bail.
“I asked for substantial bail and I asked for conditions of bail to be attached. The reason why I asked for substantial bail was because I indicated to the court that Mr Lowenfield is a man of means…Usually, I believe the court should fix a higher bail.”
He added that an undertaking was also requested since the embattled CEO has access to important documents, taking his portfolio into consideration.
“We wanted an undertaking from the accused to the court that certain sensitive documents in his possession would be preserved because he is the custodian of those documents, like the SoRs and SoPs. The court did not insist on that undertaking either…The concerns were based on the fact that he still works at GECOM and he still has access to documents and people that we will potentially need to use against him. We still have a concern about that.”
He said they asked Boston to recuse himself from the matter since he might be called as a prosecution witness and also due to a “conflict of interest”.
“The reason why we might have to use Mr Boston as a prosecution witness is because he drafted affidavits of Mr Lowenfield that were used in the High Court proceedings and we want to tender those same affidavits in the criminal matter. In those affidavits, Mr Lownfield made certain admissions that have a bearing on the criminal matter,” the attorney clarified.
After the elections concluded, the Chief Elections Officer would have prepared three different reports of concocted numbers, which did not match the figures tallied during the Caricom-supervised National Recount. Those false reports, which show that the APNU/AFC won the elections, were submitted to the GECOM Chair, Retired Justice Claudette Singh. However, the figures from the national elections recount exercise show that it was in fact the Opposition – Peoples Progressive Party/Civic – which won the elections. (G12)