Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield has moved to the High Court in a bid to bar government-nominated members of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Sase Gunraj and Bibi Shadick from voting on the motion seeking to dismiss him.
Underscoring that the motion had been tabled by Gunraj and seconded by Shadick, Lowenfield contends that “the participation of the complainants Gunraj and Shadick in the hearing of their own complaint is in breach of the rules of natural justice [and] infected the deliberations of the Commission with bias.”
Through his attorney, Nigel Hughes, Lowenfield argues in his Fixed Date Application (FDA) against GECOM that his contract of employment provides two bases for termination of his services–either via a three-month notice; or without notice for “gross misconduct” providing that the CEO is given written notice setting out clearly the reason for termination and being given an opportunity to respond.
A hearing on the application is scheduled for August 4 before Justice Jo-Ann Barlow.
Among other things, Lowenfield is seeking a declaration of what he says is his entitlement to the protection of the rules of natural justice and fair hearing and resultantly for Gunraj and Shadick to be restrained from participating as adjudicators hearing the motion.
He also wants the court to declare that GECOM—having determined the motion is to be heard—is bound to ensure he is protected by natural justice and is given a fair hearing.
On June 1, following the tabling of a motion for immediate dismissal by Gunraj, Lowenfield was asked by GECOM Chair Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh to show cause why he should not be removed from his position as CEO.
The motion accused Lowenfield of acting in a manner which has caused a loss of public confidence and public trust in the electoral process. He was also accused of discarding his oath of office and failing to act fairly and impartially or legally in the discharge of his duties.
Noting that he had responded to this request in writing, Lowenfield said in his application that he is now entitled via the terms of employment and the rules of natural justice to a fair hearing, including the right not to have the complainants participate as adjudicators in the hearing of their own complaint against him.
Lowenfield (the Applicant/Claimant) said that following the submission of his response, Gunraj and Shadick then met with the Commission to deliberated how it should proceed with hearing the complaint.
Lowenfield specifically argues that since the complaint had been filed by Gunraj and Shadick, their participation in the process of how the Commission ought to proceed, would result in bias and breach the rules of natural justice.
The CEO says that the participation of Gunraj and Shadick in hearing the very complaint they have brought also breaches the implied terms of his contract of employment in that he is entitled to a fair hearing of his response to any complaint of gross misconduct levelled against him.
In addition to the declarations and orders being sought, Lowenfield also wants the court to grant any further order it deems fit as well as costs.
A total of three motions had been tabled on June 1—one for Lowenfield’s dismissal and the other two for the dismissal of Deputy Chief Election Officer Roxanne Myers and Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo.
They have been accused of acting in a manner which has caused a loss of public confidence and public trust in the electoral process.
The trio is also facing criminal charges that were instituted as a result of alleged misconduct during the post-voting process after last year’s general and regional elections.
They are all currently on annual leave pending the decision of the Commission.
