Trotman’s arguments on Lowenfield’s report are complete rubbish- Nandlall

Former Attorney General (AG) and executive of the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C), Anil Nandlall, has rebutted the recent utterances made by the co-chairman of the Alliance For Change (AFC), Raphael Trotman, to defend the actions of Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield. In so doing, Nandlall has labelled Trotman’s arguments as “complete rubbish”.

Nandlall’s comment followed after Trotman stated that the CEO Officer cannot be directed by the Chairman and the Commissions of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), nor can he be instructed by any quote of the law—even if the CEO commits a wrongful act.

Trotman was at the time defending the report submitted to the Commission by Lowenfield in which the he falsified numbers. These figures, notably, matched the declaration made by the Region Four Returning Officer (RO), Clairmont Mingo, who fraudulently inflated the votes in favour of the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) as exposed in a series of articles done by Kaieteur News.

In spite of Lowenfield’s report being riddled with inaccurate computations, Trotman on Saturday said to his supporters, “It appears from my standpoint that his report stands, and I say this based on my own legal training… It would be unheard of for the Commission or Chairman, whether it is four or all of them, or the Chairman herself, for any direction or instruction to be given to the CEO as to what that advice (report) should entail. I don’t see how any section of the Representation of the People Act or any powers that the Commission may have or could overturn or undo that report once it is issued.”

The co-chairman went on to say that, “Once the CEO’s report is issued based on precedence, then I don’t see how that report can be undone even by the Commission itself. I know that many people are throwing around Section 18 of the Elections Law Amendment Act, but at the end of the day, the CEO has both a statutory and constitutional duty, and no Commission, or person or quote, for that matter, can direct the CEO to do his job.”

However, during an interview with Kaieteur News yesterday, Nandall posited that Trotman’s arguments, “taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that a CEO can throw away the results of an election, consisting of the will of the people expressed by the ballot, and make up a report of his own liking and GECOM would be bound to use that perverse report as the basis for the declaration of the results of those elections.”

In that result, Nandlall believes that it would not be a “Government elected by the people” but it would be a “Government selected by the Chief Elections Officer”.

“Only a demented mind,” he said “would hold such a view, and it is simply tragic that such an argument can come from a trained legal mind.”

The former AG reminded that the most fundamental legal principle running throughout the whole gamut of election laws is that the election results declared, must truly reflect the will of the electorate.

He went on to say, “Likewise, the relevant sections of the Representation of the People Act, including Section 96, mandate the Chief Elections Officer to produce his report based upon the votes cast by the electorate for their respective party and nothing else. Trotman’s arguments are therefore beyond nonsense.”