Dr Alexis would have better served his clients by encouraging them to accept the reality of their electoral loss

Dear Editor,

I first heard of Dr. Alexis during the infamous “34 is the majority of 65” No Confidence Motion, (NCM) case. I followed the NCM case with incredulity as it wound its way through Guyana’s Court of Appeal (CA) and ultimately to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). To say that I was astonished at the arguments tendered would be an understatement.

While any primary school child would tell you that 33 is greater than 32, educated minds appearing at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) were complicating the simple: Dr. Alexis posited arguments to interpret the  term “majority” in Article 106 of the Constitution of Guyana to mean “absolute majority” as opposed to “simple majority.” Simply put, he wanted to redefine “majority” in the context of Guyana’s 65-member parliament. This ultimately failed.

Against that background, I not surprised by the latest opinion tendered by Dr. Alexis which was generously splashed across the front and third pages of the Guyana Chronicle dated 2020.06.28.

I am compelled to categorically reject this opinion and its perverse implication. On commenting on the CA’s decision in David v Chief Election Officer et. al., Dr. Alexis observed that “…. GECOM ordered a national recount of all the ballots cast in the election. That recount has been held. The report of the Chief Election Officer (CEO) to GECOM on that recount affords a proper formula for calculating the valid votes cast at the election, and so enabling the declaring of a President and members of the National Assembly.” The logical implication of this opinion is that CEO Keith Lowenfield’s butchery is now elevated to a formula for the determination of Guyana’s March 2, 2020 elections. Dr. Alexis must disabuse himself of the notion that Guyanese will find this macabre process palatable.

It is regrettable that Dr. Alexis, a former Attorney General of Grenada, thinks that it is acceptable, nay perfectly legal, for Mr. Lowenfield to, by executive fiat, disenfranchise over 116,000 Guyanese voters. This is the application of the formula that Dr. Alexis referenced in his opinion.  It is apparently clear to Dr. Alexis, but unclear to everyone else, that Lowenfield is the “fit and proper” person so empowered to conjure up a formula to ascertain the valid votes cast. Stripped to the basics, this is the result that APNU+AFC hoped to achieve through the CA’s decision. Unfortunately for them, it is not lost on the electorate that the validity of each ballot was twice determined, once at the close of polls, and then during the national recount. Only valid votes are counted.

I wish to remind Dr. Alexis that Guyanese fought a very long and difficult battle for the right to choose their own Government. Further, Dr. Alexis and the many legal minds enlisted to argue against the voice of the people of Guyana are simply on the wrong side of history. They would have better served their clients by encouraging them to accept the reality of their electoral loss.

Guyana’s 2020 elections were derailed because the incumbent regime seeks to illegally stay in power and is shopping for legal cover. This is as clear as daylight to everyone. Complicated legal arguments and technical interpretations of Guyana’s Constitution cannot be the basis to overturn the mandate of the people. No amount of legal sophistry will change the fact that a majority of the people of Guyana rejected the incumbent regime. The actions of the APNU+AFC post elections confirms the sagacity of the electorate’s choice.

Yours faithfully,

Kowlasar Misir