Where is the smoking gun?

Dear Editor,
The APNU-AFC propagandise that they were the rightful winners of the March 2020 elections, but how is it that the statements of poll in the possession of observers and others record the majority of votes cast for the People’s Progressive Party? How come the SoP totals for Region Four differ from those presented by Mr. Mingo?
At one point, the APNU/AFC Government reported to Guyanese and others that it had deported Russian operatives who were clandestinely working in Guyana to rig the elections to produce an outcome unfavourable to the APNU-AFC.
Prior to this claim, election campaign operatives and several party operatives had shared that President Granger had won and would be sworn in within 24 hours of the close of poll. I was told this by a high-ranking campaign official and current Member of Parliament. News had so spread of his impending victory that cool down carts and other food and drink vendors were setting up shop on the avenue directly across from the building that served as the APNU-AFC election campaign headquarters.
Instead of a victory or pre-victory speech, well-wishers and others were reassured that victory was in hand. Riled up, they were asked to exercise patience in order to allow the system to work. Two days after the close of polls, a small group of campaign officials and other persons holding various positions within the APNU-AFC Government, including Ministers and Advisors, planned and mobilised a group of volunteers to take photographs of SoPs at several polling places in Region Four.
Why was this necessary? Did APNU-AFC election representatives at polling stations forget this most basic of responsibilities, to take pictures or scan the final tally of votes affixed to a secure spot outside of polling places on election day? I hardly believe so, not only because they would have had to see their colleagues representing other political parties taking pictures or scanning the images, but also because it is a core duty of party agents trained to observe elections and polling places.
Did the incumbent APNU-AFC Government, with several of its members having fought twenty-plus years for the opportunity to lead the Guyanese nation, really forget to take photographs of SoPs? Let’s say they forgot to take photographs or scan SoPs after the final votes were tallied and posted, could this be a lapse or willful act in an election that was oftentimes referred to as the “mother” of all elections by Government officials and other Guyanese on and off social media? Would the heightened importance of the March 2, 2020 elections in Guyana make it all the more necessary to exercise due diligence?
It just seems to me that there are too many coincidences, outlandish propaganda, and zero substance and credibility in the big messages pushed by the APNU-AFC during the five months that the Guyanese nation waited for an official announcement from GECOM.
It would seem that the Coalition has some explaining to do about other aspects of its campaign and persuasion tactics too. I am knowledgeable of a pen drive that was received by three representatives of the APNU-AFC election campaign from GECOM through a third-party. The pen drive has on it the figures and results by region and party from the five elections. It also contains results of the March 2, 2020 elections listed in Excel spreadsheets. Unlike results of the prior five elections, the March 2, 2020 files showed three separate sets of results which are titled: (1) How GECOM have it, (2) How the PPP have it, and (3) How the Coalition have it.
Thinking back about the Coalition SoPs conundrum, where did the figures contained in the file titled How the Coalition have it derive from? Were they derived from the SoPs they did not have in their possession, or have failed to produce thus far?
Readers might be surprised to know the Ministers, Presidential Advisors, campaign communications personnel and young APNU-AFC volunteers involved in the pen drive sharing and the planning and mobilizing of said volunteers to take photographs of SoPs at numerous polling places across Region Four. For example, at least one of the coordinators of this exercise is the founder and director of an Information Technology business in Guyana. He not only worked on the elections campaign of the APNU-AFC; his company provided ICT services for the Government prior to the elections. Other key figures include a PNC intelligence officer and former advisor to the President, three APNU-AFC Parliamentarians, and an academician who also served as a Presidential Advisor.
As a Guyanese, I can only anticipate that the findings report produced by the Commission of Inquiry into the March 2, 2020 Elections in Guyana contain more credible contextual details about significant events that took place that the vast majority of the general public remains unaware of.
The final major election propaganda was to decry the legitimacy of the elections. It started with the Russian operatives trying to rig the elections, and concluded with only valid votes count. The recount was not about determining which votes should count and which should not; the Laws of Guyana do not permit this. The recount was another propaganda tactic to counter the legitimacy of the results, which favoured the PPP and its own coalition by attacking the integrity of the voting exercise.
One of the hardest pills to swallow for the coalition is that many of its traditional supporters in several institutions, even some of the rookie politicians who worked at National and Regional Government levels, openly disagreed with their attempts to persuade the nation and international community that it won the elections, and the integrity of the voting exercise was violated severely. Unfortunately for the coalition, when it shifted into winning at all costs, not only were many supporters confused and morally uncomfortable, several of Guyana’s traditional allies in the region and international sphere were unwilling to support the cause of the coalition.

Chris Singh