Whither the “evidence”, Professor?

Dear Editor,
A letter has been published bearing the bold caption “Most citizens would expect that a responsible attorney general would take the evidence presented seriously”. That letter is authored by Andre Brandli, PhD, Professor, Ludwig-Maximilian’s University, Munich, Germany, and is a response to a letter of mine.
The esteemed Professor first ascribes to me a responsibility with which I am not imbued: “the investigation” of “the irregularities that occurred in the wake of the 2020 General and Regional Elections, March 2, 2022”. The laws of Guyana prescribe identified agencies with this responsibility; the Attorney General is not one. I have neither been assigned, nor have I assumed such responsibility.
The goodly Professor embarks upon another harangue about the level of voter turnout at the March 2nd, 2020 General and Regional Elections. In so doing, he again eschews the statistics published by the Guyana Elections Commissions (GECOM) upon which I relied to debunk his hypothesis in my previous letter: (list of electors -660,998; total votes cast – 468,184 = 70.8% voter turnout). Not fazed, the Professor perseveres in this second letter. The gravamen of his contention is herein captured: “to cut a long story short, the adult voting population in Guyana was estimated to range between 470,000 to 508,742. This amounts to a more realistic voter turnout ranging between 91.3% to 98.8%.”
It is obvious that the above is the “evidence” that the Professor insists that I take seriously. I am not aware of the area of the Professor’s training, but in mine, “evidence” is a term of art, and not any material conjured up or statistical data guesstimated qualifies to be characterised as “evidence” – moreover, to be taken seriously.
The Professor offers absolutely no basis upon which he arrives at Guyana’s “adult voting population” in 2020 to range between 470,000 to 508,742. But that aside, it is these guesstimated figures that the Professor then uses to calculate a voter turnout of 91.3% to 98.8%. What apparently eludes the Professor is the simple fact that only registered electors can vote, and 468,184 of them voted on March 2nd, 2020. It is only those valid votes that are reckoned, and their aggregate is declared as the results of the elections. When that is checked against the total list of electors, it supports a voter turnout of 70.8%.
It appears that the Professor divided the total number of votes cast at the 2020 elections (468,184) by his guesstimate of the “adult voting population” in Guyana (470,000 and 508,784) to arrive at a voter turnout of 98.8% and 91.3% respectively. Perhaps the fault is mine, but at no level does this make sense!
Interestingly, even the fiercest of protagonists peddling their discredited narrative of voter impersonation at the 2020 elections would recognise the excruciating flaw in the Professor’s reasoning, as they themselves have never advanced a contention even remotely close to that which the Professor postulates.
In conclusion, I am to regrettably inform that there is no “evidence presented” capable of being taken seriously.

Mohabir Anil
Nandlall, SC, MP
Attorney General and
Minister of Legal