Motions for the dismissal of three key GECOM employees have now been amended to allow for the termination of their contracts.
Yesterday’s meeting of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) was adjourned without a decision on the nearly two-month-old motions for dismissal tabled against Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, Deputy Chief Election Officer (DCEO) Roxanne Myers and District Four Returning Officer Clarimonte Mingo.
The meeting ended after two government-nominated commissioners Sase Gunraj and Manoj Narayan had to leave to participate in a meeting of the CARICOM Elections observer mission to St Lucia. Their absence meant there was no longer a quorum.
The motions, first tabled on June 1 have however been amended to allow for a termination of contracts in lieu of dismissal. “Based on the terms of the contracts which we were able to see last week we have orally moved amendments to offer termination as an alternative to dismissal. So the Commission can terminate the contract and pay in lieu of notice,” government-nominated com-mission Bibi Shadick told Stabroek News.
Opposition-nominated Commissioner Vincent Alexander however contends that the amendments are a means to avoid the issues he had previously raised.
“They are backing off…they probably can’t confront my issues about a fair hearing and all that so they are attempting to go into the normal termination arrangement,” he shared.
Shadick has stated that GECOM Chair, Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh accepted the amendments. She added that in explaining her decision Singh noted that CEO Keith Lowenfield had himself mentioned that his contract provides for termination. “In the application, as was pointed out by the Chair, Lowenfield himself said that he’s on contract and the Commission is going about it the wrong way by seeking to dismiss him when he can be terminated.
That’s in his submission,” Shadick stressed. Stabroek News had previously reported that Lowenfield has approached the High Court seeking to have Shadick and Gunraj barred from any vote related to the motion they have brought to have him dismissed.
In that application filed against GECOM the CEO notes that 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.
Following the filing, Shadick had told this newspaper that in the absence of an injunction the Commission could still debate and vote on the motion. She however acknowledged that Singh had previously set a precedent of not discussing matters which are sub judice.
Notably an application for injunctive measures is scheduled to be heard tomorrow therefore the Commission’s next actions are reliant on the outcome of those hearings.
The substantive matter will be heard on August 4.
