By a majority vote, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has selected Dominican Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan for its legal representation in the elections petitions filed by the opposition APNU+AFC.
This selection was apparently done without any consultation with embattled Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, who is formally named as the respondent in the proceedings, prompting criticism by the opposition-nominated commissioners.
Section 4 of the Validity of Elections Act specifies that if a petition complains of any act or omission on the part of GECOM, its membership or its staff, the CEO is to be named a defendant.
In the petition filed by Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse, it is specially contended that GECOM failed to discharge its constitutional functions, exercise general direction and supervision over the registration of electors and the administrative conduct of all the elections of members of the National Assembly.
Consequently Lowenfield is identified as a respondent.
During a press conference yesterday, opposition-nominated Commissioner Vincent Alexander, who was part of the minority when voting took place on Friday, criticised the decision as not only contrary to years’ long precedent but also contrary to a decision made by the commission three days prior.
Alexander said that it had been decided on October 27th that the CEO would be represented by a team of attorneys. Opposition-nominated commissioners and the CEO were to be allowed to nominate an attorney each for inclusion on the team. Lowenfield was also to be given the opportunity to express reservations about the other attorneys recommended for appointment to the team.
A meeting was to be held on Friday to finalise this team but according to Alexander this meeting saw the Chair, Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh, stating that Astaphan alone would be representing the CEO.
He went on to claim that Justice Singh when asked about nominations coming from the CEO refused to state whether she had communicated to him on the Commission’s decision despite admitting that she had interacted with the CEO since the last meeting.
Alexander noted that from the inception, the government-nominated commissioners touted Astaphan as their choice despite reservations that he might be unsuitable due to public statements he had made which were seen as “prejudicial to the CEO.”
The Senior Counsel has provided at least two media houses with legal opinion on the legality of a report submitted to GECOM by Lowenfield, who sought to arbitrarily invalidate 115,000 votes.
He had told Newsroom that Lowenfield did not have the authority to make decisions on the validity of the vote at that stage at all.
“Mr Lowenfield, the Chief Elections Officer, is on an absolute political frolic of his own and he is doing it in a manner which is clearly in contravention of the provisions of the Act…,” he is quoted as stating in a July 10th report.
The opposition-nominated commissioners named Senior Counsel Neil Boston as their nominee. His nomination garnered no response from Singh.
Alexander acknowledged that while the CEO is the named respondent, the actual respondent is GECOM but maintained that the officer should be allowed to participate in the selection of the lawyer.
“Even if the Commission insists on making the final decision, it was also agreed that given the need for a working relationship with the attorney, the CEO would be allowed to make a nomination…and that the CEO would be allowed to raise concerns. We’ve had a foisting of an attorney on the CEO…it is highly procedurally incorrect for the CEO to be named by law and in the process of selecting an attorney not involve him,” he maintained.
Alexander repeatedly noted that opinions provided by Astaphan to local media included “prejudicial statements” to the CEO and suggested it was untenable to expect the attorney to work with the same person to whom he has been prejudicial.
However, government-nominated Commissioner Sase Gunraj disagrees.
“As a lawyer, he [Astaphan] is entitled to tender an opinion. There is no issue of bias being presented here,” he maintained, while adding that bias does present itself with the nomination of Boston.
He explained that in every case which went before the Court following the contentions around the March 2 elections, Boston appeared and presented the position that “GECOM erred”.
“The real defendant is GECOM and it would be untenable to have as a representative someone who has repeatedly assailed the actions of GECOM,” he maintained, while arguing that there is no need for the CEO to be consulted.
“If Lowenfield doesn’t feel comfortable in carrying out the dictates of the Commission then well…” Gunraj concluded.
