Home News PPP writes GECOM Chair not to accept report of total votes from...
…as RO breaches Court order even after CJ insists that SoPs be used, displayed
Attorney-at-Law Anil Nandlall on Friday evening wrote the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chairperson, (ret’d) Justice Claudette Singh, requesting that she does not accept the Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica) Returning Officer (RO), Clairmont Mingo’s tabulation for the region as he has failed to conduct the process in accordance with the order of the court.
During the Contempt of Court hearing on Friday, Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George reasserted her March 11, 2020 ruling, making it pellucid that the RO must use and display the Statements of Poll (SoPs) in the tabulation process – which is in accordance with her ruling on Tuesday.
This was after SC Boston claimed that when the tabulation process recommenced that morning, figures were extracted from the SoPs and placed on the screens along with the Polling Station number.
However, the Chief Justice pointed out that those entitled to be there during this process are also entitled to see the actual SoP document under Section 84 of the Representation of People’s Act.
“You have to produce the piece of paper [SoP]… so that person[s] see it. The issue is dealing with the observing of [the SoPs]…I can’t see why, what’s the particular difficulty of using [SoP],” she contended.
According to Justice George, the SoPs were used during the tabulation process of the first set of SoPs for the region, ie 421 SoPs, and there were no issues, hence, the same process should be used again to continue the verification.
Boston, who represented the Returning Officer as well as Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, and the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), committed in court that his client will comply and display the SoPs.
The GECOM Chair, who was also present in court on Friday, indicated to media operatives that she expects the RO to comply with the order of the court.
“It’s the order of the court… It was a consensual agreement [in court that the Statements of Poll will be displayed…,” Justice Singh stated, adding that she does not know why this process was not used in the first place to continue the tabulation process.
Disregard for court’s order
Despite this, however, the series of events that followed Friday’s contempt of court hearing caused Attorney Anil Nandlall to formally write the GECOM Chair on what transpired.
In the letter shared by Nandlall, he informed Justice Singh that after the court hearing, he went to the RO’s Office where the process was ongoing and observed a spreadsheet on a projector screen, as opposed to the SoP, being used for ascertaining the votes which is in violation of not only Section 84 but also the court’s order.
This process, he pointed out, continued uninterruptedly from 09:00h until about 14:00h, even during the court proceedings, using the same methodology. However, Nandlall said he intervened, which resulted in RO Mingo halting the process and relocating it to the GECOM Headquarters at Cowan and High Streets, Kingston.
There, he noted, “a projector was used and where only what appears to be an excerpt of a document purporting to be a Statement of Poll appeared on the screen… In any event, the entire process was carried out at such a speed that made it impossible for anyone to competently observe the same.”
According to Nandlall, the same methodology used earlier in the day continued, therefore, neither the Chief Justice’s order nor Section 84 was followed or complied with.
“In the circumstances, I hereby request that you instruct the Returning Officer not to publicly declare the total number of votes cast for the electoral district #4 for each list of candidates, nor communicate to the Chief Elections Officer the total number of votes cast in the electoral district #4 for each candidates…,” Nandlall stated in his letter to the GECOM Chair.
He further requested that she does not “…reiceve from the Chief Elections Officer the report of his ascertainment of the result of the elections pursuant to Section 96 of the Representation of People Act…, and that the Commission do not declare and publish any such elections results under Section 99 of the same Act.”
Nandlall noted that if any of these processes are allowed then they would be in Contempt of Court and unlawful, illegal, null, void and of no effect.
