There should be no time wasting in having Lowenfield removed

Dear Editor,

In an unprecedented 115 days after General and Regional Elections were held in Guyana, a declaration is yet to be made electing a new President.  It is the conclusion of many like myself that what Guyana and the world over have witnessed post polling day is nothing short of a travesty and a brutal attack on our country’s democracy.

There was a time in our history when Guyanese did not possess the right to vote at all, much less for a leader of his or her choice. That fundamental right was later acquired in the name of democracy after many struggles. Today in 2020, the majority of Guyanese are yet again fighting to have democratic principles prevail, albeit this time it is to ensure their votes are not stolen or disregarded by rigging of the Elections.

By the 3rd of March, 2020 it was clear to the two major political parties that the PPP/C had won and the APNU/AFC had lost the Elections. With that knowledge not once or twice were there attempts to thwart the will of the people in favour of the incumbent, but four times over the last 115 days. Twice by Clairmont Mingo and now after much litigation and finality of the recount process which most certainly tested the patience of the entire nation, we are yet again left at the mercy of Mr. Lowenfield CEO of the Guyana Elections Commission who unilaterally decided more than one week ago that he will foist upon himself the power to  disenfranchise 275,000 electors and most recently after the pronouncement of the Court of Appeal in the Eslyn David matter in a mad rush he submitted another falsified report this time wiping away 115 thousand plus votes as being invalid.

Let’s clarify, Mr. Lowenfield does not possess any right whatsoever to invalidate votes on mere allegations or the absence of documents in ballot boxes, or at all. His only function is to tabulate the votes as per recount numbers and to give a summary of the observation report (not in his opinion). He is to then allocate the seats according to the final figures again as per recount results.

To put it into perspective, the basket of issues provided by GECOM during the recount process clearly stated that a ballot is valid once the intent of the voter is clear. Section 87 (2) of the Representation of the People Act Cap 1:03, sets out in plain simple language the instances where a ballot must be rejected and is therefore invalid, most certainly not Mr. Lowenfield’s call. Most importantly, GECOM issued certificates after each region was completed in the recount process which stated plain as day the number of valid votes cast for each list of candidates. Observers from the High Level CARICOM team (referred to by the President as the most legitimate interlocutor), who despite the Covid-19 pandemic dedicated their energies and time to scrutinizing the Recount Process and accurately presented their final report stated that “we are…of the unshakeable belief that the people of Guyana expressed their will at the ballot box” and that the recount results are completely acceptable. Further Madam chairwoman of GECOM in her wisdom as a retired Judge publicly announced that GECOM and by extension the CEO does not possess the authority of a Court of Law to pronounce on the validity of an election and definitely does not have the power to invalidate votes.

Clearly, but wrongly, assuming that the Commission can only act on his advice the CEO wickedly produced two reports which did not accurately reflect the will of the people neither the results of the recount. This in my mind not only amounts to a serious violation of Electors’ fundamental rights but is also a criminal act which must be condemned by all right thinking persons. There should be no time wasting in having him removed as the CEO. Notwithstand-ing I am of the informed view that the CEO in any event is subject to the direction and control of the Commission. Consequently, it is necessary at this stage for the Chair-woman to declare a result consistent with the will of the Guyanese people expressed at the Polls.

Any aggrieved party has to take the appropriate route, that is, through an Elections Petition filed in the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature after the completion of the Electoral process and a President is elected. This brings me to several reasons (in my view) why it was necessary to appeal the said Eslyn David case to the Caribbean Court of Justice; firstly the issues in that case touched and concerned the validity of an Election in so far as votes were validly cast and was quite clearly outside the ambit of Article 177 (4) of the Constitu-tion; secondly as a precautionary measure to ensure no voter is disenfranchised, and thirdly to preserve the paramountcy of our Constitution which must not to be altered by an ordinary piece of legislation on the whims and fancies of any party.

The incumbent seeks to erroneously give credence to Lowenfield’s reports, for the obvious reason that it places them in the lead, disregarding as they always have the Rule of Law and basic civil and democratic principles. Principles which the rest of world seek to uphold.

It is therefore with utter disgust, that I note the condemnation of many in the APNU/AFC camp whose mischievous or devious agenda it does not serve and to launch an attack on the statements made by the International Community and in particular that of the Honourable Prime Minister of Barbados and the Chair of CARICOM Madam Mia Mottley on the 24th June, 2020 as foreign interference. I strongly beg to differ and in fact commend the entire International Community especially the Honourable Mia Mottley for her frankness and unwavering stand on upholding the principles of democracy as is expected of any great Leader.

Yours faithfully,

Sonia Parag

Attorney-at-Law