Deputy Chief Election Officer (DCEO) Roxanne Myers has challenged those members of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) requesting her dismissal to provide proof that she failed to appropriately execute her duties during the 2020 General and Regional Elections or in any way participated in alleged attempts to falsify the results.
“The reliance on conjecture, innuendo and unsubstantiated allegation cannot be deployed as a substitute for the requirements of proof and independent evidence… I have not acted unlawfully in the discharge of my duties and statutory functions. None of my contractual obligations were breached,” Myers writes in her response to Commission Chair Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh.
The response, seen by Sunday Stabroek, is dated June 15 and was submitted following a June 1 request from Singh that Myers show cause why she should not be dismissed.
The request in turn followed the tabling of a motion earlier in the day by two government-nominated commissioners for the dismissal of Myers over her alleged conduct in relation to the elections.
Last month, Myers, Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield, Deputy Chief Election Officer Roxanne Myers and Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo were faced with two joint charges of conspiracy to defraud voters at last year’s general and regional elections. She has also been faced with two criminal charges of misconduct in public office.
In many ways the motion against Myers repeated the allegations levelled against Lowenfield, her superior, and claimed that she aided and abetted him in his actions and failures. Myers has denied all allegations and contended that the motion shows a distinct lack of “familiarity with the administrative procedures of the secretariat in relation to the [the elections].”
In her response, Myers explained that she held no responsibility for election officers but rather was tasked with managing operations at the commission’s Command Centre, specifically the Media Centre, Logistics Division and Information Technology Division. The officer stresses that she was not responsible for the operations within the office of Mingo nor did the officer report to her in any capacity as that was not her statutory function.
She further contended that in the absence of a formal independent inquiry that includes all GECOM officials, election officers and staff into what occurred during the elections and an investigation into the GECOM Command Centre riot, no one could rightly impute any unlawful action on her part or breach of statutory functions with or relating to the conduct of these elections
In his inauguration speech last August, President Irfaan Ali announced a review of the elections process and committed to holding anyone who tried to undermine it to account.
“A review of events related to the electoral process over the last five months will begin shortly in order to determine, forensically, exactly what transpired, and to hold accountable any persons who sought to pervert and corrupt the system,” he said.
Nearly one year later no such inquiry has been launched despite Ali promising in April that it was coming very soon.
‘Not within scope’
Myers, in a seven-page response to Singh, addresses in detail all of the 14 allegations levelled against her. In many cases, she repeatedly notes that no particulars of the alleged behaviour was identified.
For example, the motion contends that the DCEO in breach of her functions, duties, responsibilities and obligations aided and abetted the CEO as he failed and/refused to ensure due adherence and compliance of the statutory process by Mingo, an election officer under his control and supervision.
Myers denied the allegation and added that she could not respond fully because there were no particulars of the alleged failure, refusal or neglect.
The same response is provided for the allegation that she aided and abetted Lowenfield’s failure to ensure that the process of ascertaining the total number of votes cast in favour of each list of candidates in District Four was done “with dispatch” and “without inordinate or undue delay.”
“The tabulation of results was not within the scope of my authority,” Myers reminds.
She notes that “the idea of aiding and abetting someone to fail to discharge their responsibilities is unique” and stresses that she has always discharged her statutory and employment obligations consistent with the law and term of my employment.
“I never abandoned my post or shirked from responsibilities even when GECOM lost security control of its Command Centre that became overrun by politicians, agents, observers and persons not authorised to be there,” she writes.
The overrun of the command centre, which she has referred to as a riot, is a particular contention for her as she notes that in keeping with her duties she expressed dissatisfaction with the performance of the Commission’s internal security officers, Ronald Stuart and Surujbans Persaud, which she says contributed to the overcrowding and mayhem that occurred.
‘Partisan framing’
Among the numerous allegations levelled against the DCEO there are only two which involved her specific actions.
The first contends that on March 5 Myers facilitated a meeting in a GECOM facility by a candidate of a contesting party, Karen Cummings. Myers denies the allegation.
In responding, she explains that she neither authorised nor facilitated any meeting, adding that while on the second floor she observed the meeting in process and immediately called the CEO to enquire of his authorisation.
“He responded in the negative. The observers were asked to vacate the room. Afterwards, my conversations with international observers and diplomats who were “guests of the chairman” revealed that their unauthorised access to that room in the GECOM command centre resulted from instructions not given by any GECOM official,” Myers stated.
Numerous videos of the meeting shows Myers entering the room while on her mobile phone. She hands the phone to Cummings and dismisses those gathered. Sunday Stabroek understands that CEO Lowenfield was on the other end of the line.
The second contention is that Myers instructed members of the Guyana Police Force to remove a Commissioner, Sase Gunraj, and party representatives from the GECOM Command Centre.
Again Myers contends that no evidence has been provided to support this allegation and denies it in its entirety.
In rebuttal, she offers a Facebook post from a member of political party The New Movement. The video, she writes, shows that in the presence of a police officer that she made a third call for party representatives to vacate the building following a bomb threat.
“By that time Commissioner Sase Gunraj had already left the building. One representative could be heard saying, “Sase abandon we…” and I defended that comment,” Myers says, adding that she had already defended herself against the claim when it was tabled by Commissioner Bibi Shadick at a meeting on March 17.
Myers also addresses the allegation that her conduct has caused a loss of public confidence in the electoral system, while noting that her body of work as a profession in the field of governance and as a social activist has been of a consistently high standard, non-partisan and in the interest of all Guyana.
“The basis for the allegations against me are political in scope, nature and intent…the suggestion of loss of public confidence emanates from the partisan framing of Roxanne Myers from the time of my appointment as DCEO…the partisan frame was amplified in the Ashmins building on March 5 when the contrived narrative that [Singh] was being held hostage by me and forced into direct communication with Congress Place was peddled…this false accusation which has no basis in facts or the occurrences of that day gained currency in some sections of the society,” Myers writes before concluding that the commissioners who tabled the motion for her dismissal are duty-bound to provide uncontroverted evidence to support the aforementioned allegations.
