Government-nominated Elections Commissioner Bibi Shadick is hoping that the lawsuit filed by Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield will not delay the adjudication of the motion for his dismissal since no injunction has been granted by the court.
“As far as I’m concerned, we should go ahead but from dealing with this Chair over the last year she has always maintained that once a matter is in the court the Commission can’t act. I hope in this case she allows the matter to continue unless an injunction is granted,” Shadick told Stabroek News.
He comment came after Lowenfield approached the High Court to have both Shadick and another government-nominated commissioner Sase Gunraj barred from voting on the motion brought for his dismissal.
Shadick said even if the Chair chooses not to debate the motion against Lowenfield there are two other motions, against Deputy Chief Election Officer Roxanne Myers and Region 4 Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, which can be decided as scheduled on Tuesday.
According to the Commissioner, while everyone has a right to approach the court, the most recent action by the CEO seems like a desperate attempt to delay the Commission’s work.
Reminding that it was Shadick and Gunraj who tabled the motion, Lowenfield contends that their participation in the hearing of their own complaint is in breach of the rules of natural justice and infects the deliberations of the Commission with bias.
According to a fixed date application filed by Lowenfield against the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), his contract of employment provides for two bases for termination of 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 giving the CEO an opportunity to respond.
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.
According to the CEO’s High Court application, he responded to this request in writing and is entitled via his terms of employment and the rules of natural justice to a fair hearing, including the right not to have the complainants participate as adjudicate in the hearing of their own complaint against him.
The issue of bias on the part of the government nominated commissioner was first raised by opposition-nominated commissioner Vincent Alexander, who called for an independent tribunal to be established to adjudicate the matter in GECOM’s stead.
Singh voted against Alexander’s proposal and scheduled the motion’s debate for July 12. Additionally the Commission unanimously decided to send the three officers on annual leave until the matter was settled.
Reacting to the latest lawsuit, Gunraj said the actions filed against the Commission are getting more ridiculous every day while likening it to grasping at straws.
Like Shadick, he believes there is no impediment to GECOM proceeding to hear and decide on the matter since no injunctive action was brought.
Shadick, who is an attorney, questioned the logic of Lowenfield’s suit as she highlighted that in the National Assembly motions are regularly tabled, debated and voted on by members and she stressed that the member who tables the motion still maintains a vote.
“I don’t have a problem if Mr Lowenfield’s lawyer thinks they have a case, let them go ahead; however, GECOM is entirely a constitutional commission and its operations are outlined in constitutional law, so it is GECOM that appoints and dis-appoints its officers. We can’t have an outside tribunal decide the matter because we can’t ask someone else to do our job,” she stressed.
Shadick further noted that if two commissioners from the same side of the Commission were to be barred from voting there would be no quorum and the action would stall. A quorum at GECOM included the Chair and two commissioners from each side of the political divide.
She maintained that all her opinions expressed at the commission and in public remain the same and charged that if government-nominated commissioners have displayed bias then so too has the opposition-nominated commissioners.
“That’s what they’ve been trying to do since the beginning — say we are biased but if we are biased then they are biased too. I will not deny anything I said. This thing really bothers me. You can’t do what [Lowenfield] did and not expect reactions,” Shadick maintained.
She also stressed that it is imperative that these issues be settled as the GECOM Secretariat is currently in limbo with both Lowenfield and Myers on leave.
“The CEO is the accounting officer of GECOM so the Secretariat is stalled right now. They can’t spend money on anything. We have decisions to make, elections to hold, we need this finished,” she concluded.
Local government elections are due to be held this year.
