PNCR coalition has lost the 2020 elections, it should make way for peaceful transition  

Dear Editor,
One of the most controversial public servants in Guyana is Keith Lowenfield, who serves as the GECOM Chief Executive Officer. He was supposed to file his new election report to the Elections Commission on July 10, 2020; but, as predicted, he didn’t, having used some technical Congress Place legalisms for his dereliction of duty.
When the Court of Appeal (CoA) made its decision in the Eslyn David case, Lowenfiled did not seek legal clarification or guidance from the Commission, but hurriedly submitted his election report in less than 24 hours, despite being restrained by a ‘stay’ of 3 days. And he disenfranchised 115,844 voters in the process.
For his failure to prepare his election report as instructed by the GECOM Chair, Lowenfield wants to know which “results of the election of March 2, 2020 could be lawfully declared.”
This inquiry is startling! There is only one legal result flowing from the recount that was validated by the Caricom high-level team. What other result could Lowenfield be having in his mind?
Does he think that the fraudulent March 13, 2020 report that he submitted to the Elections Commission, which was held in abeyance, should still be under consideration? How could he dare to even suggest this when the tabulation for Region 4 was proven fraudulent at the recount and witnessed by the world? The full extent of that Region 4 electoral fraud was exposed at the recount when the tabulated votes matched the figures of the SOPs of March 2, 2020.
Lowenfield and his allies are continually looking for openings to deny the PPPC its victory. The judgment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is clear. The direction of the GECOM Chair to Lowenfield is clear. The declaration of the winner must be made on the basis of the recount figures as reflected in the 10 certified Statements of Recount (SORs). Seemingly trying to defy the ruling of the CCJ, Lowenfield and his conspirators are trying to re-write and even distort the CCJ’s clear an unequivocal ruling.
Lowenfield refers to a so-called tension between Order 60 and the Constitution. Sanjeev Datadin and other lawyers have already adequately addressed this matter.
Lowenfield enquires from the GECOM Chair: “The historic practice of submissions of the election report to the Chairman has been premised on ascertainment of the result by the Chief Elections Officer. The structure of your missive suggests a change in operational procedures….”
I say that the Chair reserves the right, and has the authority to change procedures once the existing ones are compromised and pose an imminent threat to the integrity of the election process. Given what we know about attempts by rogue elements at GECOM and the PNCR to rig the elections, the Chair has no other option but to move aggressively to check this evil penetration.
Ralph Ramkaran, SC, highlights the powers of the Elections Commission. He cited Article 162(1) (b) of the Constitution: “The Commission shall issue instructions and take such actions as appear to it necessary and expedient to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with the provisions of this Constitution, or any Act of Parliament on the part of persons exercising powers or performing duties connected with or relating to the matters aforesaid.”
It was precisely under this provision that the Commission instructed Gocool Boodhoo, then GECOM CEO in 2015, to change his report which had the PPPC incorrectly winning by one seat.
Lowenfield raises what he perceives as other technical /legal issues. He says that the election law “envisages the allocation of seats that are premised on the statutory report of the Returning Officers.” He continues: “It is noteworthy that the CCJ clearly stated in paragraph 37 that the ‘allocation of seats in the National Assembly and the identification of the successful Presidential candidate are determined on the sole basis of votes counted, and information furnished by returning officers under Representation of the People Act.’ As you are aware, the National Recount was not undertaken by Returning Officers.”
The votes were indeed counted and furnished by Returning Officers on March 2, 2020, and they show that the PPPC won the elections by a margin of 15,000 votes. The APNU-AFC refused to make their copies of the SOPs public, likewise Mr Lowenfield’s copies were kept secret. Why? The recount was to authenticate/validate the SOP figures, since Mingo, in collusion with Lowenfield, had declared fraudulent figures for Region 4 that did not match with the GECOM-certified SOPs. And the recount figures matched the figures on the SOP for Region 4.
At Mingo’s June 13th declaration for Region 4, APNU-AFC was given 132,000 votes, compared with 74,000 for the PPPC. At the recount, APNU-AFC actually received 116,941 votes compared with 80,920 votes for the PPPC.
Mingo and Lowenfield gave the APNU-AFC a bogus lead of 58,000 votes in Region 4 over the PPPC when in fact that lead was just 36,021, as confirmed by the recount. In my view, a recount does not necessarily have to be conducted by the Returning Officers. It’s always preferable to have independent people to conduct the recount, as this is an exercise to probe the validity of the original vote count. It’s like an audit function. Trying to engage in further legal manoeuvres would only delay the inevitable.
The Lowenfield legal team had the opportunity to raise legal and other issues with the CCJ. The ruling of the CCJ is clear: The declaration of the winner, PPPC, should be based on the recount figures. The transition must begin, as advocated by various national and international organizations.

Sincerely,
Dr Tara Singh