Dear Editor,
On Wednesday, Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield submitted documents pertaining to the March 2, 2020 Election to the Supreme Court’s Registrar for safe-keeping.
This is in keeping with a court order that all election materials are to be turned in for evidential inquiry at the upcoming election petition’s hearing, as well as for his own court trial.
Now, see how easy that was? No fanfare, no drama, no political posturing, but a simple handing over of the evidence. I am talking about all 2339 statements of poll (SOPs) and statements of recount (SORs) for the court’s keeping.
From the look of things and from Lowenfield’s demeanour, I guess there must have been a nudge from the chairwoman and other legal brains on that commission for him to act civilly, in accordance with the law. That law stipulates that, at the end of an election, the Chief Elections Officer ought to present all original documents pertaining to that election.
Further, and worthy of note, he is not a “lone ranger”, or a law unto himself, whereby he can tamper or falsify any of the selfsame documents. In short, Mr Lowenfield cannot assign unto himself such privileges. As a subordinate officer, he is subject to the dictates of the law.
In this regard, all election materials remain public documents for the safe keeping of the GECOM, and not the private domain of an individual or party, or for it to be coloured by one’s partisan opinions. So, Lowenfield would be hard pressed to show how the signatures of political officers and Ministers of Government came to be on the statements of poll for District Number 4. I do not know how he would wiggle his way out of this one, but it is left to be seen.
To sum it all up, I would say there will be a conviction, because when this matter comes up for hearing, Lowenfield and company must lead a defense as to why those original documents were not tendered at the time of the verification of the Region 4 election results?
Another question that he alone must answer is: why, and for what purpose, were fraudulent figures substituted for a declaration at both the Ashmins Building and in the Cowan Street declarations?
As a Chief Election Officer of many years, he cannot feign ignorance, that he does not know what were the requirements of his job description, as well as the procedures governing a declaration; certainly not!
What the events clearly show is a public officer acting in concert with persons of a political party to rig the election.
Lowenfield’s shenanigans are utterly outrageous. Neither can he fight the natural outcome of this case as it pertains to his fraudulent declarations. If he foolishly does, then the State has the right to appeal. The State has the means and the ability to do so, and this it would do right up to the Caribbean Court of Justice. My point is, dire will be the consequences if he resists!
What he can safely do is fall on the mercies of the court and plead for leniency when sentencing time comes up. In either scenario, there will be a conviction, which would send the strongest of signals to all fraudsters out there that rigging would not be tolerated.
Respectfully,
Neil Adams
