Private criminal charges of misconduct in public office have been filed against Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) retired Justice Claudette Singh, for what complainants are alleging is her disregard of advice that the recount of votes of the March 2nd elections was unlawful.
According to legal documents seen by this newspaper, Keith Ondaan of Amelia’s Ward, Linden is alleging that despite advice from the Commission’s legal officer and Chief Parliamentary Counsel on March 16th and May 17th respectively that the recount was unlawful Singh “recklessly and unlawfully” disregarded that advice.
Ondaan is contending that though the Chairperson had been informed that the recount was “unconstitutional,” she “knowingly caused” the order which facilitated the recount, to be gazetted.
Also filing misconduct charges against the Chairperson are Lorraine Joseph of Melanie Damishana, East Coast Demerara (ECD) and Onita Walcott of Victoria Village ECD.
For her part, Joseph is alleging that between May 29th and June 23rd the Chairperson “acted recklessly and unlawfully” by breaching the recount order gazetted on May 4th and an amended recount order of May 29th.
Meanwhile, Walcott is alleging that between March 14th, June 13th and 23rd, Singh acted recklessly and unlawfully by refusing to accept the report of Chief Election Officer, Keith Lowenfield.
Stabroek News understands that Singh has not yet been served, but that the matter will be called on August 5th before the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court.
Intimidate
Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall yesterday said that the charges were vexatious and meant to intimidate the GECOM chair and in any case she was immune from lawsuits in relation to the discharge of her functions.
“These private criminal charges are the latest installment of abuse of the judicial system with hopelessly misconceived and vexatious litigation, this time, in the criminal jurisdiction by the APNU+AFC, as they continue their relentless efforts to derail the electoral process. There is no doubt that they intend to bully and intimidate the Chairperson of GECOM. It is a frontal political ploy to intimidate an autonomous, constitutional officeholder in the hope that they can compromise her integrity, to produce corrupt election results to their liking”, Nandlall declared.
He added: “The charges relate to the national recount exercise. The decision to do a national recount was not made by the Chairperson alone but was a unanimous decision of the Commission. It was born out of an agreement between David Granger and Bharrat Jagdeo and brokered by CARICOM. The legal authority and powers of GECOM to do a recount was thoroughly examined by the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the Ulita Moore case. The Court of Appeal ruled definitively that GECOM is so empowered. It is only after this ruling that GECOM proceeded with the recount”.
Nandlall, who has appeared for the PPP/C in much of the elections litigation, said that the Chairperson had been careful to stay her hands while matters concerning the elections were in the court and for this reason, no one can properly accuse her of acting improperly or unlawfully.
He further pointed out that “The legal infrastructure under which the recount was done, including Article 162 of the Constitution, the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act, and Order 60 of 2020, were all comprehensively examined by the Caribbean Court of Justice in the Eslyn David case. The CCJ ruled that the recount was lawful, transparent and fair; that Order 60 was legal and that the results of the recount must be used as the basis of the declaration of the final results. The CCJ further vacated Lowenfield’s report presented to the Commission because he did not use the results of the recount to produce that report.
“Finally, in the Misenga Jones case, Chief Justice Roxane George also examined all the issues I mentioned to you, and gave the recount and Order 60, her imprimatur. She also emphasized that the recount results must be used for the final declaration. She expressly stated the CEO is not a law unto himself, is not a lone ranger who can use whatever numbers he chooses”.
He charged that the fabricating of criminal offences out of issues already conclusively determined by superior courts of record constitutes “unpardonable abuse”.
He stated that the Director of Public Prosecutions should forthwith take over the charges and terminate them under Article 187 of the Constitution.
“Lastly, both under the RPA (Representation of the People Act) and the Constitution, Justice Singh as Chairperson of a constitutional/statutory agency, is immune from suit (both criminal and civil) in respect of the discharge of her functions”, Nandlall said.
Plethora
Since general and regional elections were held on March 2nd, there is yet to be an official declaration of the results.
A plethora of litigation which is still ongoing has been mounted over the embattled elections.
Both the incumbent APNU+AFC and the main opposition PPP/C have claimed victory at the polls.
A national recount of ballots cast was, however, subsequently executed which shows an opposition win.
Though the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)—Guyana’s final appellate court has endorsed the validity of the recount, a government supporter has since mounted the most recent challenge to the recount’s validity.
Last Monday, acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire ruled among other things, that quite contrary to litigant Misenga Jones’ interpretation, the CCJ did in fact validate the recount, the results from which the chief justice said are the only ones that can to be used to make an official declaration.
Jones has since appealed Justice George-Wiltshire’s ruling to the Guyana Court of Appeal which will be delivering its ruling at 11 this morning.
Jones is of the view that GECOM was obligated to accept the CEO’s report of June 11th, made before the recount, in which he relied on the declarations made up to March 13 by the Returning Officers for the 10 administrative regions.
Those declarations, which were disputed due to the manipulation of the Region Four results, had been held in abeyance as the recount was agreed to. The recount showed that the PPP/C won the majority of votes, while Lowenfield had sought to declare results in favour of the incumbent APNU+AFC.
Following the CCJ ruling, Singh had instructed Lowenfield to submit a report using tabulations from the national recount of ballots cast on March 2nd. Lowenfield has, however, repeatedly submitted reports which show a win for the incumbent.
The tabulation of the recounted ballots saw the opposition People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) leading the incumbent A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) by 15,416 votes—with the PPP/C securing 233,336 votes compared with 217,920 secured by APNU+AFC.
Before the recount, a highly controversial declaration made by Clairmont Mingo, Returning Officer for Electoral District Four, the coalition was poised to win with 237,017 of the 472,834 votes cast. This is 7,638 more than the 229,379 secured by the PPP/C.
