Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield has asked the High Court to strike out the elections petition filed by the opposition PPP/C’s Ganga Persaud, saying it is “materially defective” because it fails to establish any grounds to vitiate the polls.
In an affidavit in support of summons filed by his attorney Roysdale Forde, Lowenfield asks that the petition, dated June 24th, be struck out and argues that the substantive submissions disclose no reasonable cause of action, and are frivolous and vexatious.
Lowenfield argues further that some of the submission are in breach of the Representation of the People Act, which prohibits the deliberations of the Guyana Elections Commission (Gecom) and communications between commissioners regarding its business from being admissible in court.
In his affidavit, Lowenfield says he believes that the statements in Persaud’s petition are “insufficient” to establish a cause of action and that the “absence of material facts” results in no foundation being laid for grounds to vitiate the elections.
Referring to specific provisions of paragraph 8 of the petition, the CEO argues that the particulars and grounds of the election petition contain numerous vague statement and averments, devoid of material facts.
Persaud, who is seeking an order for fresh elections as a form of redress, claims, among other things, that valid ballots were wrongly deemed as rejected, that many Statements of Poll (SoPs) used by Gecom and/or the CEO to tabulate the results contained arithmetic errors; that there was multiple voting by persons at various polling stations; persons not on the Official List of Electors were allowed to vote; persons impersonated and voted for electors; and “huge mobs” at several polling stations and other strategic points, particularly in Region 4, created fear rendering it impossible for officials to carry out their duties.
Persaud also said several ballot boxes from various polling divisions were either not sealed or improperly sealed with the authorised seals at the close of poll and several of the party’s ballot attendants and polling/counting agents were prevented from accompanying the boxes while those attached to the APNU+AFC coalition were allowed to do so.
According to the petition, many of the SoPs used by Gecom or the CEO to ascertain the results “were not the Statements of Poll which emanated from the polling stations but were fraudulently concocted and inserted into Gecom’s machinery, and therefore, the data contained thereon is not reflective of the will of the electorate as expressed at those polling stations.”
Persaud said too that the procedure used to intermix the Disciplined Services ballots with that of the general electorate is “unknown, irregular and clandestine” making it impossible to determine that which was intermixed were indeed those ballots. He said that the PPP/C’s votes were subtracted in some cases and added to the coalition at some polling stations.
Persaud also stated that the CEO and/or the Returning Officer miscalculated and/or incorrectly tabulated and ascertained the elections results.
“The Returning Officers of nine of the ten polling districts unlawfully refused requests by the Counting Agents of People’s Pro-gressive Party/Civic for those districts, to conduct a final general count as is provided for by the Representation of the People Act,” he further said.
Fails to provide facts
However, Lowenfield advances that the petition, among other things, fails to provide facts in respect of polling stations/divisions where rejected ballots were accepted as valid ballots.
He says the petition fails to provide facts in respect of how many statements of poll used by Gecom and/or the CEO to ascertain the results, contained arithmetical errors, the number of them used to ascertain the results, the polling stations from which they derived and numerical differences.
He also says the petition fails to provide facts in respect of multiple voting at various polling divisions throughout the country, including the number of persons who voted multiple times and where this took place.
According to Lowenfield, the petition fails to provide facts regarding persons whose names were not on the official list of electors but were allowed to vote, and the number of persons who purportedly impersonated and voted for as electors.
Similarly, Lowenfield argues further that the petition fails to provide the locations of strategic places where it claims huge mobs had gathered, or to show how ballot boxes were not sealed or were improperly sealed with authorised seals at the close of poll, and fails to provide the names of ballot attendants and polling/counting agents of the PPP/C who were prevented from accompanying boxes.
Lowenfield also contends that the petition failed to provide facts in respect of the number of fake SoPs counted as valid, and how the manner in which the system, process and procedure used to intermix the Disciplined Services ballots with that of the general electorate was unknown, irregular and clandestine.
He says too that the petition fails to provide facts in respect of the polling stations and divisions where it is claimed votes cast in favour of the PPP/C list of candidates were subtracted therefrom and added to the APNU+AFC list of candidates as well as the polling stations and divisions where it is claimed there were miscalculations. In addition, he says the petition fails to provide details in respect of the requests for recounts in nine of the 10 polling districts.
In the petition, Persaud also cited Gecom meetings at which irregularities were mentioned and said that in spite of this, the results were still announced. However, Lowenfield points out that Section 140 (2) of the Representation of the People Act stipulates that no evidence of the deliberations of Gecom or communication between commissioners regarding its business is admissible in any court.
In a summons dated August 13th, Persaud had sought an order directing Lowenfield to produce for inspection and examination, for the purpose of the petition, all election papers, and documents including those he received from Returning Officers of each electoral division, under Section 102 of the Representation of the People Act.
Lowenfield, in his affidavit, says he believes that to permit any amendment to the petition or the supply of particulars would amount to permitting the petitioner to insert material facts to remedy an incomplete cause of action, outside of the statute limitation period for filing a petition.
The case is before acting Chief Justice Ian Chang, who has adjourned the matter to September 22 at 1pm for reports. Additionally, it is to be known on that day, whether the chief justice will be hearing the matter, or whether it will be assigned to another judge.
The opposition party’s position since the May 11th general elections is that it has been robbed of votes through a carefully planned rigging process on the part of the APNU+AFC coalition.
In the petition, Persaud called on the court to declare the entire elections process flawed, and containing many procedural errors and so many instances of fraudulent and/or suspicions actions that “the results that have been derived from the process cannot be credibly deemed to represent accurately the will of the electorate.”
He also asked the court to order a recount of all ballots cast in the elections.
Local and international observers have declared the polls free and fair.
