Mingo’s conduct warrants “greater punishment” – Nandlall

Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall has withdrawn the contempt of court proceedings filed against embattled Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo in light of new evidence emanating from the recently concluded National Recount.

The exercise found that Mingo had heavily inflated figures during the tabulation process back in March to favour the incumbent A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) Coalition, to given them a landslide lead over the Opposition People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).

As such, Nandlall indicated that Mingo’s conduct warrants far greater consequences.
“The gravity of Mingo’s fraud and the dangers to which he exposed this nation and its people warrant far greater punishment than mere contempt of court proceedings. So, at the appropriate time, Mingo’s conduct will be properly addressed,” he told Guyana Times during a brief interview following Thursday’s virtual court hearing in the contempt of court case against RO Mingo that was up for ruling.

On March 12, Nandlall, on behalf of his client Reeaz Holladar, had filed the case after Mingo breached the relevant electoral laws regarding the tabulation of the Region Four votes, and further violated a previous order by the High Court directing him to comply with Section 84 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, Chapter 1:03 during the tabulation of the votes recorded in the District in accordance with the Statements of Poll (SoP).

In fact, in a subsequent statement on Thursday, Nandlall reminded that at the hearing of the contempt case on March 13, the acting Chief Justice Roxane George “went to great lengths in explaining to the respondents, including Mr. Clairmont Mingo, the various ways by which her Orders can be obeyed by the use of the Statements of Poll. For example, he can either hold it up or he can project it on a screen, but whatever method he uses, it is the Statements of Poll which must be the basis of the tabulation, and the other participants in the process must be allowed a fair opportunity of observing the process and see the Statements of Poll.”

According to Nandlall, the matter was adjourned at that time for Mingo to continue the tabulation exercise in compliance with the court’s “kind and expansive exhortations”; but instead, he went on to commit even more egregious violations of the court’s orders that evening, and proceed to make the contentious declarations on March 13.

“Obviously, this evidence was not available at the time when the contempt proceedings were filed [on March 12]. Subsequently, the National Recount exercise commenced and was concluded on June 9, 2020. This exercise produced volumes of evidence establishing Mingo’s contemptuous conduct. Again, most naturally, this evidence was not available at the time when the contempt proceedings were filed,” the attorney contended.

Furthermore, Nandlall disclosed that he had previously filed applications for leave to file supplementary affidavits to put before the court this new volume of evidence, but this was not favourably considered by the court.
It is against this backdrop that Nandlall filed a Notice of Withdrawal on Wednesday – the day before the court was expected to hand down a ruling.

During the virtual hearing on Thursday morning, Nandlall told the court it is in the best interest of the administration of justice that they get an opportunity to put before the court these “very relevant and probative evidence” that was not available before; that is, information emanating from the recently concluded National Recount.

However, the Chief Justice admonished the lawyer, pointing out that it is “most unacceptable” at this late stage in the proceedings for such an application to be made. She reminded that she had previously raised the issue with Nandlall on whether the case reached the threshold of contempt proceedings, and even enquired whether he was still proceeding with the matter, to which he had responded in the affirmative.

During the hearing, Nandlall conceded, “…I should have said that I would await the outcome of the recount…”
Moreover, Justice George argued that the court cannot consider counsel’s strategy, pointing out that he was considering non-legal issues.

She further contended that the applicant was aware that the evidence was every “deficient” from the “get go” of the proceedings, and yet he had gone ahead to waste the court’s time.
“The litigant had over a month…I raised the issue from very early, whether the affidavits as filed met the threshold for contempt proceedings…But yet you proceeded [with the matter as is]. This is most unacceptable,” the judge posited.
The Chief Justice eventually accepted the Notice of Withdrawal despite objections from Mingo’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Neil Boston.

However, she was conflicted on the issue of cost. Justice George was considering applying same against Nandlall, especially since his client Reaz Holladar is now deceased. Holladar died on March 28.
But Nandlall’s associate in the matter, Attorney Devindra Kissoon, argued that if the applicant is substituted, then the cost could be levied against Holladar’s estate instead.

Nandlall had initially made an application for Padmini Bhiro to be substituted in the matter, but later withdrew the application, which was still pending before the judge.
Nevertheless, the Chief Justice hesitantly agreed. She granted the substitute application and appointed Padmini Bhiro as the administratrix of Holladar’s estate, so that the cost could be paid.

As such, the cost was set at the total sum of $450,000 – $150,000 each for Mingo; GECOM Chair, Justice Claudette Singh; and Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, who were also named respondents in the contempt proceedings.

The three Government-nominated Commissioners at GECOM: Vincent Alexander, Charles Corbin and Desmond Trotman, were also named parties, but according to the judge, there is no evidence to show they were served; hence the cost was only redeemed by three respondents.

After setting the costs, Chief Justice reminded that “…this is contempt of court proceedings, not ordinary proceedings… The court doesn’t shut you out [from bringing matters], but this is a clear case where, from the get go, it was very obvious that…the evidence was thin…it lacks specifics. Contempt proceedings are very, very serious proceedings.”
However, in his statement, Nandlall pointed out that at none of the previous hearings were any concerns raised about the contempt application being “deficient.”

“No comment was made at [the March 13] hearing about the application being deficient… at this early stage, the very contempt proceedings were able to achieve much in the national public interest,” he contended.