Embattled Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield has been given up to 11 am today by Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chair Claudette Singh to produce a final report of the March 2nd general elections using the results of the national recount of votes.
Her edict via a letter to him came after he failed to deliver that report yesterday at 2 pm as instructed by Singh on Thursday. Singh had scheduled a 1 pm meeting of Commissioners yesterday on the way forward following Wednesday’s Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruling on an elections case. At 2 pm, Lowenfield submitted a letter to Singh in which he sought various clarifications about claimed anomalies in her letter.
After deliberations yesterday, Singh crafted a letter to Lowenfield standing by her original instructions of July 9th but by this time Lowenfield had left the compound after stating that he had received a death threat notwithstanding the security detail on site at GECOM’s headquarters.
In her July 9th letter, Singh asked the CEO to submit a report by 2pm yesterday of the “valid votes counted in the National Recount as per the Certificates of Recount.”
Instead of performing this task, he informed Singh that prior to the preparation and submission of the report, “some clarifications are imperative… to safeguard against any action deemed unilateral.”
Lowenfield argued that the CCJ found that the Order for the national recount was in conflict with the Constitution and could not be allowed to create a new election regime.
“The Court endorsed the view that GECOM cannot determine credibility. It therefore holds that Order 60 of 2020 cannot be executed in its entirety. As a consequence, a final credible count as conceived by the Commission and expressed in the Order cannot be attained,” he contended.
He appears to have found nominal support from government-nominated Commissioner Vincent Alexander, who told reporters that the CCJ ruling had created a conundrum.
According to Alexander, the CCJ said the recount could not create a new regime so a declaration from that process appears untenable. He, however, would not advocate resorting to the 10 declarations previously provided and instead he called for a “non-declaration”.
“GECOM has the authority to produce a result. If you can’t. You can’t,” he argued, while acknowledging that a non-declaration is not part of Guyana’s legal framework.
“Things can be done that are not unlawful, that may not specified in the law to be done,” he said.
The CEO’s contention was, however, heavily criticised by two opposition-nominated commissioners who argued that the CEO sought to interpret the court’s judgment and did so incorrectly.
“In seeking to quote the court’s judgment he misquoted it,” Commissioner Bibi Shadick said while her colleague Sase Gunraj lamented that Lowenfield “made findings extraneous to his task.”
Guise
“You can’t come under the guise of seeking clarity and make pronouncements like a court,” Gunraj stressed while arguing that “the CCJ did not impugn the Order but rejected attempts to amend the Constitution by that Order.”
Lowenfield, in his letter, asked Singh how he could adhere to her request to prepare the report when the recount order does not comply with the provision of Section 96 of the Representation of the People’s Act.
“The election law envisages that the votes counted and the information furnished would be provided by statutory officers…the allocation of seats is premised on the statutory report of the Returning Officers…the National Recount was not undertaken by Returning Officers,” he reminded before asking for “guidance on which results of the Elections of 2 March 2020 could be lawfully declared.”
It is true that the CEO in preparing his report under Section 96 of Representation of the People Act is called upon to calculate the total number of valid votes of electors which have been cast for each list of candidates, on the basis of the votes counted and the information furnished by Returning Officers under section 84 (11).
However, using the powers granted by Section 22 of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act the Commission during the National Recount replaced the declarations from returning officers with Certificates of District Tabulations. These Certificates show a victory for the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), whose list of candidates has secured 233,336 votes compared to the 217,920 garnered by the incumbent APNU+AFC coalition.
Lowenfield seems determined not to declare these results.
According to Shadick, once he submitted his letter to Singh, the meeting devolved into a “long story of discussion and so forth” before a decision was made.
“After all this confusion a decision was taken that the Chairman would go and write him further to say that what he is asking for doesn’t have any relevance to what she has asked him to do and that he will have to do the report as per her instructions,” she explained.
At this point the CEO not only left the meeting but exited the compound after claiming to have received a death threat.
‘Holding up’
Reporters stationed outside the High Street Headquarters of the Commission saw the CEO feign an attempt to enter an ambulance in the compound before jumping into his vehicle and leaving the vicinity in a speeding cavalcade.
Shadick was unimpressed with this action and accused Lowenfield of “holding up” the country.
“While the Chair is drafting the letter the CEO walks out…everybody know what she left to do…he walks out and tell somebody that he had a death threat. She couldn’t give him the letter and will have to send it,” the frustrated Commissioner complained.
According to Gunraj, Lowenfield continues by his action to ignore the fact that he is a “creature of the commission.”
“Disciplinary action can be taken,” he stressed, while reminding that Section 18 of the Election Laws Act makes the CEO subject to the “direction and control of the Commission”.
This call for disciplinary action was echoed by three of the new parties which contested the polls in 2020.
According to the Liberty and Justice Party (LJP) both the Chair and the Commission should ensure strict compliance by Lowenfield with its instructions, and in the absence thereof, take stern disciplinary actions, up to and including his removal from office.
It reminded that the CEO has willingly prepared two other reports. One after the Court of Appeal’s ruling, in which he disenfranchised in excess of 115,000 legitimate voters and one using fraudulent numbers from Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo.
The party concludes that in light of these actions the “requested clarity is what could only be described as a disingenuous attempt to disobey the instructions [given].”
The Citizenship Initiative (TCI) has also called on the Chair to exercise disciplinary control as the case may warrant.
“TCI respectfully requests this action from the Commission, for the efficient functioning of the Secretariat and so that its work may be completed in a timely manner…Guyana’s constitution in article 161A (1) gives the Elections Commission responsibility for the efficient functioning of the Secretariat, and appointment of its officers. The Commission therefore has the power to remove and to exercise disciplinary control over such staff while Section 18 of the Election Laws Act No 15 of 2000 stipulates that the CEO is subject to the direction and control of the Commission,” it noted, while adding that Guyana is now operating on a limited budget during a pandemic.
“Our people require assistance that only a legally elected government can offer to them. It is time to bring the curtains down on a protracted electoral process in order for the country to move on,” it concluded.
Meanwhile, The New Movement (TNM) said Guyanese and the international community have witnessed yet another “vile attempt” to derail the declaration of the winner of the polls and called on Singh to either discharge or fire Lowenfield if he fails to comply with her directive.
Today marks the one hundred and thirtieth (130th) day since the people all across Guyana went out to exercise their democratic right. Within this one hundred and thirty (130) days period, much twiddling and unceremonious fondling of the law has occurred via the incumbent government’s members and even Guyana Election Commission’s (GECOM) employee, Mr. Lowenfield.
The party charged that Lowenfield’s by his actions has held an entire nation at ransom and snatched the people’s democratic freedom.
It also alluded to private criminal charges filed against him, including by one of the party’s leaders, alleging fraud and misconduct.
“…We have all suffered at the hands of one man Mr. Lowenfield and we are pleading our case before GECOM. An entire nation is suffering because one man continues to misconduct himself in high office on multiple occasions… We will reiterate that we firmly believe GECOM needs to act and take stern steps to curb his malicious actions by simply discharging him of his duties. Please act for the people of Guyana, in all justice and fairness. We have had enough,” it added.
