PM Mottley did not “direct” or “sought to direct that GECOM use invalid votes” to declare the elections winner

Dear Editor,
The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) recently held its case management proceeding for the pending Eslyn David matter. Reference is made to two separate articles on June 26 in the Chronicle, reporting on what transpired at the court.
First, in “No external pressure,” we are told that the CCJ said its work will be unaffected by external comments; those are, from CARICOM leaders as to our elections. A complaint was raised by one of David’s attorneys.
In singling out the Prime Minister of Barbados, Caricom Chair Mia Mottley, the Chronicle said: “Mottley, as recent as Wednesday, delivered stinging criticisms against the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield and sought to direct that GECOM use invalid votes to declare the March 2, 2020 elections.”
Prime Minister Mottley did not “direct” or “sought to direct that GECOM use invalid votes” to declare the elections winner. Her now famous speech is available online for verification.
One can only conclude that this is part of an ongoing campaign that Congress Place has initiated to discredit the CARICOM observers’ report and the CARICOM Chair, for accepting the truth that the Coalition lost a free and fair election. This campaign will fail. Indeed, it is already failing, as the prime minister has rebutted: “The truth hurts.”
In a second article titled, “PPP/C in failed bid to block CEO’s report,” the Chronicle joyfully noted that the CCJ did not substantively address the GECOM CEO’s report prepared in breach of the stay issued by the Court of Appeal in the David matter.
While the CCJ remarked that the CEO was conspicuously absent from court, the Chronicle, in a praiseworthy manner, said that Guyana’s Attorney General (AG) Basil Williams, “in offering clarity, pointed out that the CEO’s report was submitted ahead of the order issued by the CCJ.”
But the Chronicle did not say that the AG was the first party to defend the GECOM CEO and his report which shows that the Coalition won the elections, making the AG a direct political beneficiary of the CEO’s action and his report. The AG attempted to bypass this by noting that he spoke in the interest of justice.
Be that as it may, when an AG defends a chief elections officer whose action seeks to unlawfully disenfranchise at least 115,000 electors, such defense cannot wholly be “in the interest of justice.”
Something else is at work.
After all, reading the CEO’s own words, he ought to have been in court. On June 26, he responded to a news item as follows: “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” (see SN 6/26).
The court proceeding is entirely about elections that he supervised. He allegedly was provided multiple notices of the proceeding, yet he was conveniently absent.
Or, as counsel for Messrs Bharrat Jagdeo and Mohamed Irfaan Ali, Douglas Mendes, SC, stated: “Obviously, he has deliberately stayed away.”
If, as the AG noted, he was not a “messenger” when asked by Mendes to convey a message to the CEO; that is: to withdraw the report, why was he eager to speak in defense of the CEO’s absence or the issuance of the report? Is that not like bringing a message?
One would think that is a reasonable inference. Said another way, the AG arguably defended the missing CEO and that notorious report because he had motive.

Sincerely,
Rakesh Rampertab