Let the trial begin: election fraudsters on show

Dear Editor,
At long last, time has stepped in, and come June 11, 2021, Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan will face off with Chairperson of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), Volda Lawrence; Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica) Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo; and APNU/AFC’s activist Carol Joseph, who have all pleaded ‘not guilty’ to various elections charges facing them as regards the March 02, 2020 Guyana Elections.
When they return to court on June 11, 2021, the public will get a glimpse of their modus operandi, as they were ordered to present their ‘disclosure of statements.’
Let me remind readers that electoral fraud involves illegal interference with the process of an election (which finishes after a declaration is made). This is usually done by increasing the vote share of a favoured candidate, or via decreasing the vote share of rival candidates; it can be both. This, I add, often goes hand-in-hand with voter suppression, and as we know, APNU+AFC (A Partnership For National Unity+Alliance For Change), via Mingo and his two cohorts, attempted openly to hijack proceedings during the post March 02 period all the way to August 2020. After this first showdown on June 21, the Chief Magistrate will set a date to begin their trial.
Editor, I am very curious to see how Nigel Hughes, the lawyer for the embattled trio, will defend something that is now common knowledge in this country, that is the attempted rigging of the elections back in March of 2020. He did request that the charges against his clients remain indictable, that is, where the matter will be heard by a judge and jury. This manoeuvre will result in the Magistrate holding a preliminary inquiry (PI) to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to commit the trio to stand trial at the High Court. The Chief Magistrate ruled against it.
Let me recap the situation for our readers:
Lawrence was slapped with two charges of conspiracy to commit fraud at the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections; and Joseph was charged jointly with Mingo for forgery. All three of the accused were granted bail on various amounts.
This issue on hand (and there are a number of other matters that will surface in the near future in relation to crimes committed during the March 02, 2020 Guyana Elections) is almost a farcical drama. I cannot understand why the now notorious trio just did not plead ‘guilty.’
When a crime is obvious and open to all and sundry, the best course of action, as I see it, is to always enter into a plea bargain, and look for some form of leniency. In this Guyana situation, footage is available to be examined both personally and globally – everyone with interest at the time was privy to the attempts to derail due election processes.
As we all know, the gist of this court battle resides in the statements of poll for Region Four; it is really the genesis and crux of the March 02 Elections’ horrors. I recall how the European Union Election Observation Mission desperately wanted to verify the said statements of poll for Region Four.
The request was made by the mission to Clairmont Mingo, Returning Officer of Region Four, Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). It was very specific and rooted in the constitution too, as it was the Constitution of Guyana that Mingo was so flagrantly flouting.
I quote: “Pursuant to Section 4 (1) and (3) of the General Elections (Observers) Act, as well as Section 6,7, 8 and 9 of the Administrative Arrangement between the Delegation of the European Union in Guyana and the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, I (Alexander Matus, Deputy Chief Observer, of the Mission) am hereby requesting to examine the Statement of Polls based on which you (Mingo) have prepared the spreadsheet of results before the ascertainment of results for Region Four is completed,” the letter of request said. I note that this was almost two weeks after the Mingo shenanigans started.
We are talking here of a case where there was a public attempt to disenfranchise thousands of voters. It is now of a folklorist nature that the Mingo crew tried to pull off an impossible stunt.
Mingo departed from the public reading and tabulating of the SOPs for Region Four. The process started well, but Mingo tried stunts of malingering, changing of venue and using a fabricated spreadsheet to proffer figures unheard of and unverifiable.
So, I am wondering, with evidence galore for public consumption, how the defence will pan out. I remind readers that their lawyer, Nigel Hughes, is the originator of the now infamous 34/31 required for the No Confidence Motion. He was debunked. I think this will be no different. And I am wondering if the APNU+AFC SOPs are lodged in the court – they will be needed when the Election Petition case comes up.

Regards,
Todd A Morgan