Embattled Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield yesterday presented figures to the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) showing a victory for the incumbent APNU+AFC—in clear defiance of the instruction by the Chair Claudette Singh to utilise the recount tabulation which shows a win for the opposition PPP/C.
As international pressure on GECOM builds for a lawful declaration, Lowenfield’s recalcitrance presents a dilemma for Singh on how to have the recount figure certified as she has promised that she would. With no quorum yesterday for a meeting as the three-government appointed commissioners were absent, a meeting could be convened tomorrow at which Singh will have to decide how the recount figure will be placed before GECOM. If tomorrow’s meeting is held it could result in a declaration even without the government-appointed commissioners as the required quorum would then be the chair plus three commissioners.
Singh was silent yesterday on the way forward.
Lowenfield’s report yesterday constituted the sixth result he has presented for the March 2 polls.
Opposition-nominated Commissioner Sase Gunraj has described his latest report as clear “eye pass” for GECOM.
“That report does not contain the correct numbers as generated by the recount exercise [in a] clear and flagrant violation of specific instructions contained in two letters under the hand of the Chair,” a visibly frustrated Gunraj told reporters outside of GECOM’s Kingston headquarters, where the commission meeting was to be held. He added that the meeting had been postponed for lack of a quorum since the all three government-nominated commissioners were absent.
Singh had given Lowenfield up to 11 am yesterday to submit a report on the elections using the results which show the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) as the winner of the 2020 elections. Instead of complying, Lowenfield submitted a report reflecting a win by the incumbent APNU+AFC. He has reported 236,777 votes for APNU+AFC, 229,330 for the PPP/C and 5,091 for a joint list of three new parties.
Notably, Lowenfield’s newest report includes the discredited results declared by District Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo. On March 13, Mingo had declared that a total of 217,425 valid votes were cast within the District. Of that number 136,057 was awarded to the incumbent while 77,231 was awarded to the PPP/C.
This declaration and the process preceding it has been described by one observer group as the most transparent attempt to alter the results of an elections. The farce of Mingo’s numbers was brutally exposed when during the recount process a total of 202,077 ballots were found in the boxes for the District. Mingo had assigned 15,348 more votes than were cast on March 2.
Lowenfield, however, has gone further and altered the declaration made for six other electoral districts. His alterations do not conform to the numbers verified during the National Recount.
Numbers for Districts One, Two, Five, Six, Seven and Eight have been reduced for both parties. In District One the incumbent lost one vote while the PPP/C lost two. In District Three the PPP/C again lost two while in District Five the PPP/C lost a more substantial 54 votes and the incumbent lost 22. Similarly in District Seven the incumbent lost 197 votes and the PPP/C lost 97.
In submitting the report, Lowenfield contended that he has prepared and submitted it in accordance with his “statutory and constitutional duties and all applicable laws.” He had made this same claim about a report submitted on June 16 in which he discarded in excess of 115,000 votes. That report was declared by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) last Wednesday to be invalid.
Mingo’s initial declaration for the March elections was made on March 5 but it was vitiated by the High Court, the subsequent March 13 declaration had been widely condemned while the June 8 results of the recount have been welcomed as the accurate representation of the will of the Guyanese electorate. Lowenfield later submitted a report on June 13 and another on June 16. All but the recount results declare a victory for the APNU+AFC.
Technical officer
“It is my understanding that Article 177(2)(b) of the Constitution affords the technical officer the right to advise the Chairman of the elections result that ought to be declared,” he wrote yesterday after contending that he had been provided no clarification on the preparation and submission of the report as requested.
On Friday, instead of submitting a report as instructed Lowenfield wrote Singh stating that prior to the preparation and submission of the report, “some clarifications are imperative… to safeguard against any action deemed unilateral.”
He 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,” the CEO contended.
In response Singh, crafted a letter to Lowenfield standing by her original instructions of July 9th which was to submit a report of “valid votes counted in the National Recount as per the Certificates of Recount.”
Also of note was the fact that Lowenfield as well as the three government-nominated members of the Commission were absent from the 11 am meeting yesterday.
Government-nominated commissioner Desmond Trotman later told this newspaper that he had asked for the meeting to be rescheduled owing to concerns he had and which were shared by his fellow commissioners. However, he could not account for their absence.
“The Chair is in possession of a note from me,” he repeatedly stressed while declining to explain the “concerns” he and his colleagues had.
Attempts to reach the other two government-nominated commissioners, Vincent Alexander and Charles Corbin, proved futile.
It is not clear how the Commission will move forward.
Article 227 (5) of the Constitution provides for the quorum for a meeting of the Commission to be the Chairman and not less than four members of the Commission – two of whom have been appointed by the President in his own deliberate judgment and two from among members appointed on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition.
In keeping with this provision the meeting was adjourned. The expectation was that it would be rescheduled for today as directed by 227 (5) (i). Commissioners have been asked about their availability for a meeting on Monday.
That subsection directs that (ii) in the case of the declaration of the results of the election of the President, the meeting shall stand adjourned to the following day, at the same time and place and notice of such adjournment shall be given to the absent members; and if at the adjourned meeting a quorum is not present, the members then present, being not less than four including the Chairman, shall be deemed to constitute a quorum and any decision made at that or any such meeting shall be valid in law and binding.”
Asked what the action the Commission can take in the face of Lowenfield’s continued refusal to submit the requested report Gunraj appeared to suggest that the report on the recount submitted on June 13 can be used to make a declaration.
“The Commission has a document which the accurate numbers,” he stressed.
