Lowenfield lies about being a “constitutional” officer

…no law gives CEO power to invalidate a single vote – PPP/C

Breaking his silence on the controversy surrounding his “fraudulent report” submitted to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield has defended his actions – and in so doing, blatantly lied about being a constitutional officer.

The embattled CEO, in a press release issued by GECOM Secretariat on Friday, said, “While the Commission makes certain policy decisions and provides guidance to the Chief Election Officer for implementation by the Secretariat, I have to execute my duties as a Constitutional Officer, particularly in the conduct of Elections.”

Lowenfield, however, is not a constitutional office holder, as he claimed. The Office of the CEO is not created by the Constitution of Guyana; it is created by the Representation of the People Act, and the CEO is hired by the Commission.
In fact, this was highlighted by the Peoples Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) which, in a detailed press statement, chastised the CEO for his “blatant and public attempt at elections rigging”.
According to the PPP/C, Lowenfield is a “statutory contractual officer of the Commission, and his mandate is to only act upon the directions of the Commission”.
The CEO was on June 16 instructed by the GECOM Chair, Justice Claudette Singh, to prepare a final elections report based on the recount figures (which show the PPP/C winning the March 2, 2020 elections).
Lowenfield, however, eventually submitted a report with concocted figures invalidating over 115,000 votes, to award the “victory” to APNU/AFC coalition. The CEO claims that by disregarding the directive from the Commission, he acted in “conformity with the laws”.
But the PPP/C has argued that “no law gives Mr. Lowenfield the power to do what he attempted to do, a fact he well knows.”
The Party added that, “he has no power to invalidate a single vote, moreover 115,000 votes. Even the Commission has no power to invalidate votes. That is the preserve of the High Court moved by an election petition after the declaration of the final results upon the presentation of evidence.”

More untruths
In fact, the PPP/C highlighted additional untruths in Lowenfield’s statement, contending that “he falsely claims that the Elections Commission’s function is to provide “policy” and “guidance to the Chief Election Officer for the implementation of the Secretariat.”
The Party pointed to several Articles in the Elections Amendment Act as well as the Recount Order which clearly states that the CEO is subject to the direction and control of the Commission at all material times.
Section 18 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act 2000 states: The Chief Election Officer and the Commissioner of Registration shall notwithstanding anything in any written law be subject to the direction and control of the Commission.
Additionally, Order 60/2020 states: “The Commission shall, after deliberating on the report at paragraph 12, determine whether it should request the Chief Election Officer to use the data compiled in accordance with paragraph 12 as the basis for the submission of a report under section 96 of the Representation of the People Act Cap 1:03, provided that the Commission shall, no later than three (3) days after receiving the report, make the declaration; and “For the avoidance of any doubt, the Chief Election Officer and every person appointed or authorized to perform any act or functions by virtue of this Order are, and shall remain, subject to the general supervisory power of the Commission.”
Moreover, the PPP/C argued that Lowenfield’s reliance on the Court of Appeal’s judgment is also “conveniently misplaced in furtherance of his scheme to defraud the electorate”.
The Party pointed out that at no point did the Court of Appeal rule that the CEO could unilaterally determine the valid votes cast in the election.
“The Court of Appeal certainly did not empower Mr. Lowenfield to disenfranchise voters,” the PPP/C contend.
In fact, it reasoned that “as much as we have an issue with the Court of Appeal’s ruling, to their credit, Justice Reynolds resided the power in the Commission, not the Chief Election Officer, to determine final and credible results”.
The PPP/C therefore posited that, in any event, the Court of Appeal’s decision was stayed and was not in effect at the time.
“Accordingly, on those bases alone, Lowenfield’s attempt to hide behind the Court of Appeal’s judgment in committing electoral fraud must be discarded,” the PPP/C asserted.

Conspiracy to commit fraud
The PPP/C has argued that Lowenfield is acting in concert with the APNU/AFC, and that he is “part of a larger conspiracy to commit elections fraud”.
“APNU/AFC is clearly part of Mr. Lowenfield’s scheme to commit these criminal acts. The Attorney General, who ought to be an independent and impartial constitutional officer holder in the current proceedings at the CCJ, as part of that conspiracy, attempted to justify Mr. Lowenfield’s conduct at yesterday’s [Wednesday] CCJ hearing, showcasing to the world the conspiracy at work,” the PPP/C reasoned.
It further noted that this latest incident is merely only a part of “APNU/AFC, and now their surrogate Lowenfield’s sordid history, in attempting to justify their actions under the colour of the law and constitutionality”.
“The unilateral appointment of the Chairman of GECOM (Justice James Patterson), later declared unconstitutional and illegal by the CCJ; the several attempts to unlawfully remove tens of thousands of Guyanese electors from the national database, and the attempt to use Mingo’s spreadsheet as an instrument to fraudulently gift to APNU/AFC over 20,000 votes are just some examples of such, and they were all declared unlawful by the court,” the PPP/C stated.
But the Party assured that, like all the above unlawful excesses that have failed, “We promise the people of Guyana that we will do everything possible to ensure that this latest attempt suffers the same fate”.