The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has unanimously decided to send Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, Deputy Chief Election Officer (DCEO) Roxanne Myers and Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo on leave pending a decision on whether a tribunal will investigate accusations leveled against them.
According to a statement released by the Commission the three officers will proceed on their annual leave from June 28, 2021.
“The CEO will proceed on 42 days annual leave, the DCEO will be on 120 days leave and Mr. Clairmont Mingo will be on 35 days leave,” the statement explains adding that the decision was necessary to facilitate the Commission’s deliberation on the three motions tabled by the government nominated Commissioners seeking the immediate dismissal of those persons.
Also to be facilitated is a decision on “the course of action to be adopted to conclude this process.”
Members of the Commission have explained that a proposal has been tabled for an independent tribunal to examine the accusations laid against the three officers.
Opposition-nominated Commissioner Vincent Alexander who tabled the proposal yesterday told Stabroek News that it would not be fair for the officers to be judged by their accusers.
“The Commissioners who brought the motions have publicly indicated where they stand on the issue. They have a bias and principles of natural justice allow for impartial hearings. So I’ve suggested that an independent tribunal examine the issue. [The government-nominated Commissioners] disagree and the Chair has asked for time to make a decision,” he explained.
Government-nominated Commissioner, Sase Gunraj confirmed to reporters that the decision about whether the motions will be debated at the Commission or the matter taken to a tribunal rest with Chairperson ret’d justice Claudette Singh.
“It is our contention that the Constitution allows the Commission to treat with and deal with motions of this sort. In fact, we are constitutionally mandated to be the authority to do that and that there is no power in us to delegate such hearings,” he argued.
Both Commissioners have indicated that there is no timeline attached to the Chair’s while GECOM has said that it “intends to conclude these discussions within the shortest possible time”.
In the motion presented by Gunraj and seconded by Commissioner Bibi Shadick, Lowenfield is accused of acting in a manner which has caused a loss of public confidence and public trust in the electoral process.
Myers is accused of aiding and abetting Lowenfield’s actions while Mingo is accused of discarding his oath of office and failing to act fairly and impartially or legally in the discharge of his duties.
Additionally they have all been accused of failing, neglecting and abdicating their functions, duties and responsibility to ensure both compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and the electoral legislative framework and the essential criteria of impartiality, transparency, fairness and credibility to the operations of the Elections Commission and its Secretariat.
The motion relates to three stages of the five-month process which ended last August.
In the first instance Mingo is accused of failing to tabulate the votes cast in Region Four in line with the provisions of Section 84 of the Representation of the People’s Act (RoPA).
Lowenfield is accused of failing to ensure the RO’s compliance and Myers is accused of aiding and abetting Lowenfield in this failure.
The motion against Myers does not state how she “aided and abetted” the CEO but does present two instances where she acted in a manner which the Commissioners allege lacked impartiality.
According to the motion the DCEO facilitated a meeting between a candidate, then Foreign Minister Karen Cummings and foreign observers at a GECOM Command Centre and on another occasion instructed members of the Guyana Police Force to remove GECOM Commissioner Gunraj and various party representatives from that same command centre.
In the case of Lowenfield the motion contends that his failure to act persisted even after complaints to the CEO and public protests from members of contesting political parties that there were major and serious discrepancies in the votes recorded in the Statements of Poll in the possession of those parties and the votes being declared by Mingo.
It persisted even after Chief Justice (CJ) Roxane George in the Reaz Holladar case vacated and set aside the March 5 declaration made by Mingo as being unlawful and in breach of Section 84 of RoPA and further issued an interim injunction preventing GECOM from declaring the results of the election until the Section was complied with.
Despite this injunction the CEO prepared and submitted a “final report” on March 7 containing several unverified votes as declared by Mingo. In that report the APNU+AFC were declared winners. The CEO also sought by letter to the Chairwoman to convene a meeting of the Commission to have this report approved even as the CJ had not yet delivered a ruling in the case.
Following the March 11 ruling which gave specific instruction to the RO and other elections officers as to the manner of tabulation the three officers are again accused of failing to perform their duties.
Mingo is accused of presenting for tabulation Statements of Poll that were clearly and visibly altered and which contained numbers radically different from those in the possession of representatives of political parties.
In this second series of actions the CEO is accused of either condoning or encouraging the numerous breaches and violations of Section 84 of RoPA committed by Mingo, and other election officers and staff of the Secretariat or abdicating and abandoning his functions and duties to take the necessary steps to remedy such breaches and violations. Myers again is accused of aiding and abetting Lowenfield.
The third instance of failures relate to the CEO’s actions following the months long recount process.
Lowenfield is accused of submitting on June 13 a report in which he disregarded the votes cast for each of the list of candidates as established by the recount process.
“Instead he produced revised totals of votes cast after he had deducted scores of thousands of votes in favour of the PPP/C list of candidates on grounds of alleged “irregularities and anomalies”, a phrase coined by the APNU/AFC during the recount process and he concluded that the results for District 4 cannot be regarded as credible. In short, he failed and/or refused to produce the report as he was lawfully required to do as the CEO and instead he was purporting to act as a Judge of the High Court hearing an Elections Petition,” the motion states.
Myers is accused of aiding and abetting.
The motion reminds that GECOM’s chair by letter dated 16th June, 2020 issued a directive to the CEO to prepare and submit his report pursuant to Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution and Section 96 of RoPA by the 18th June, 2020, at 13:00 hours using the results of the recount, for consideration of the Commission. The CEO, it said, deliberately failed, refused and neglected to do as directed without any proper reason or excuse.
Another report submitted on June 23 was presented despite the Court of Appeal issuing a stay of three days on Orders made in the case of Eslyn David v. Chief Election Officer. This case decided the meaning of the words “valid vote”.
In submitting this “second recount report” Lowenfield is accused of acting in open “defiance of Orders made by the Court.”
Despite the Caribbean Court of Justice finding Lowenfield’s actions to be unlawful he did not comply with the request of the Chair.
Subsequent to the decision of the CCJ in the Eslyn David case delivered on July 8, 2020, the Chairperson directed the CEO to prepare and submit his report by 2 pm on July 10 using the valid votes counted at the National Recount as per Certificates of Recount generated therefrom. The CEO failed to meet the deadline as stipulated by the Chairperson and instead requested certain clarifications.
A fourth request issued on July 13 for a submission on July 14 was also disregarded. These failures have been described in the motion as violating the CEO’s oath of office to faithfully discharge the duties of his office and to act fairly and impartially in the discharge of those duties.
Finally it is mentioned that the three officers are all currently facing criminal charges in relation to these actions.
“Regardless of the outcome of those charges, the Commission must take all necessary steps and action, pursuant to Article 162 (I) (b) of the Constitution to restore and ensure impartiality, credibility, transparency, public confidence and public trust in its institution and its constitutional and statutory mandate,” the motions said.
