PPP/C says CCJ never invalidated recount process

OUTRAGED over the fact that the Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield reverted to the declarations made by returning officers in March, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), on Saturday objected to the Elections Report which was submitted to Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh.

The chief elections officer, ahead of his submission on Saturday, had expressed concerns that there could not have been a declaration from the national recount on the basis that the Recount Order – Order No. 60 – contradicts the constitution and the Representation of the People Act. He had pointed to the written judgment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) made on July 8, but the PPP/C said the country’s apex court in the Eslyn David case never invalidated the Recount Order or the recount process.

“Of course, the judgment contains no such pronouncement. In fact, the court thoroughly examined the Recount Order and endorsed the recount Pprocess..,” the PPP/C said in a statement on Saturday. It pointed out that the CCJ only granted three orders – one, granting special leave to Irfaan Ali and Bharrat Jagdeo to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal; that the appeal of the appellant was allowed; and that the said decision of the Court Of Appeal was made without jurisdiction, is invalid and of no effect. The court had also invalidated the second Elections Report submitted by the chief elections officer on June 23, 2020.

In his quest to determine “a final, credible count,” as mandated by the Recount Order, Lowenfield had excluded 115,000 votes from his Elections Report because they were affected by a range of irregularities and cases of voter impersonation. However, the court ruled that only the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of elections, and as such it invalidated the report. It was after the ruling of the CCJ that the Chairman of GECOM on Thursday (July 9) requested a third Elections Report from the chief elections officer. The first Elections Report was never invalidated but was placed in abeyance by the elections commission to facilitate the national recount. His third Elections Report is reportedly reflective of the first, though the GECOM Chair had insisted that the report be compiled using the valid votes tabulated during the national recount.

“Lowenfield’s conduct not only amounts to gross insubordination and an egregious dereliction of his duty, but his report constitutes intentional fraud in that he included numbers which he knows to be fraudulent and fictitious. For example, he tabulated the ten (10) Certificates of Recount and submitted in a previous report to the commission 460,352 as the total valid votes cast and in the fraudulent report now submitted to the commission, he states that the total number of valid votes is 479,118, a difference of nearly 20,000 votes , and this is only the tip of the iceberg,” the PPP/C said. But the chief elections officer from all indications did not use the data from the recount, but from the declarations made by the returning officers, which is stipulated in the Representation of the People Act and reinforced by the CCJ. Paragraph 37 of the judgment reads: “Both the allocation of seats in the National Assembly and the identification of the successful presidential candidate are determined on the sole basis of votes counted and information furnished by returning officers under the Representation of the People Act.”

Against this background, the chief elections officer, in one of his letters, had reminded the Chair of the Elections Commission that the national recount was not undertaken by returning officers. But the PPP/C said Article 162(1) (b) of the constitution empowers the elections commission to, “issue such instructions and take such actions as appear to it necessary or expedient to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with the provision of this constitution or any Act of Parliament on the part of persons exercising powers or performing duties connected with” the electoral process.

It also made a case for the dismissal of Lowenfield, noting that under Article 161 (a), it has the powers to do so. “…GECOM has a constitutional mandate and duty to dismiss Lowenfield forthwith for his fraudulent conduct, his dereliction from duty and his vile insubordination and to immediately appoint another chief elections officer to carry out its directions contained in its various letters to Lowenfield,” the party said.