Liberty and Justice Party (LJP) leader Lenox Shuman remains at loggerheads with members of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) over whether he was eligible for inclusion on his party’s list of candidates on Nomination Day.
While Shuman yesterday said he had submitted proof that he no longer held Canadian citizenship at the time, members of the Commission told reporters that they were not in receipt of his evidence.
At a press conference held at his party’s Cowan Street headquarters, Shuman told reporters that he renounced his allegiance to Canada on December 11th and yesterday received “a copy of a certificate” from the Canadian High Commission showing that his renunciation was completed on January 9th, one day before the January 10th Nomination Day.
Shuman did not present a copy of the certificate to the media and maintained instead that the document was lodged with the commission.
Following repeated questioning on the matter, he directed reporters to the Canadian High Commission to “deal with that component of it.”
Shuman was one of three candidates identified to the Commission as holding dual citizenship at on Nomination Day.
On the day in question, all candidates contesting the March 2nd, 2020 general and regional elections were required to sign a Statutory Declaration identifying themselves as eligible to sit in the National Assembly.
Article 155(a) of the Constitution specifically disqualifies persons who hold citizenship in foreign states from election to the National Assembly.
Shuman, Vishnu Bandhu, of the United Republican Party (URP), and Valerie Leung, of the People’s Republic Party (PRP), were identified to the media as having violated this prohibition on dual citizens sitting in the National Assembly. All three have argued that they have renounced their foreign citizenship and are therefore eligible for election.
In the case of Bandhu, he renounced his American citizenship on January 16th, making him a dual citizen on January 10th.
Leung, according to Commissioners, has submitted a certificate of renunciation, dated January 21st, which also disqualifies her from contesting.
Shuman, they note, has submitted only “a long, long multi page letter from a lawyer,” which they say has not indicated he was eligible on Nomination Day. “On the day that they took that oath, all three of those persons were not entitled to be on List of Candidates. We are saying that according to the law, they are not entitled to be on the list on nomination day and they can’t be added after so they can’t be on the list,” opposition-nominated Commissioner Bibi Shadick told reporters.
Government-nominated Commissioner Vincent Alexander expressed a similar position, while stressing that at the point when Shuman and the others signed the declaration, they had not renounced their citizenship in the foreign territories. “One doesn’t simply sign a form and it is renounced,” he maintained.
Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield, in response to questions on the matter, indicated that he has not seen any correspondence. “Anything written would’ve been written to the Chair. I have no knowledge about these matters except for the submission made by Ms Gail Teixeira on Nomination Day showing that she has renounced her Canadian citizenship,” he said, while displaying the certificate submitted by Teixeira.
On January 21st, the seven-member commission decided that once a person held dual citizenship at the time when they signed the statutory declaration form, that person should not be allowed on the lists of candidates.
Deadline
In keeping with this decision, GECOM Chair retired Justice Claudette Singh wrote to each party requesting that the provide evidence in writing showing just cause why the name of the identified candidate should remain on their list of candidates. The deadline for this submission was January 31st.
Shuman and Leung have since questioned the authority through which GECOM has questioned their legitimacy.
“GECOM has acted illegally. GECOM has no authority to remove any …candidates from the list,” Leung declared in a three-minute video on her party’s Facebook page.
She argues in the video message that Article 163 (1) (a) of Guyana’s constitution grants exclusive jurisdiction to the High Court to determine the eligibility of any candidate for membership of the National Assembly.
A similar argument is presented in the letter sent to Singh by Shuman’s attorney, K. Juman-Yassin, who says that GECOM “cannot remove Shuman’s name off his party’s List of Candidates as only an order from the High Court can facilitate this.”
Additionally, Shuman, who has declared himself a threat to the two main political parties, is accusing the Commission of possible bias.
“It is a known fact that all your members on the Commission are affiliated to one or two parties and that the Liberty and Justice Party…is a threat to both…as it has joined forces with two other parties…it is in the interest of the two main political parties to weaken this coalition so they may not get sufficient seats,” Juman-Yassin asserts in his letter.
Referring to Article 144(8) of the Constitution, he notes that “any court or other tribunal prescribed by law for the determination of the existence or extent of any civil right or obligation shall be established by law and shall be independent and impartial; and where proceedings for such a determination are instituted by any person before such a court or other tribunal, the case shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time.”
“[GECOM] if it should sit to determine the issue… is a tribunal and as a result should be independent and impartial and the matter to be determined shall be given a fair hearing… apart from yourself all other members are not independent and or impartial thus any deliberation would be in breach of the constitution,” Juman-Yassin argues, while noting the Shuman believes some commissioners will use this opportunity to oust him as a candidate from his party’s candidates’ list.
This contention, according to Alexander, appears to be bordering on defamation of character. He indicated to reporters that he will be contacting his lawyer for advice on the matter.
“In that letter he said the Commission cannot be objective. In that regard, for me he is bordering on defamation of character. In that statement, he seeks to say that I am affiliated to a party on one hand and goes on to say because of that kind of affiliation we cannot be objective and I will be consulting my lawyer on this matter because Shuman is bordering on defamation of character,” he said.
