Ahead of a crucial vote, a meeting of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) was adjourned yesterday following a withdrawal by opposition-nominated commissioners Vincent Alexander and Desmond Trotman.
The meeting, which was expected to vote on the termination of the Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield, Deputy Chief Election Officer Roxanne Myers and Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, will reconvene on Thursday as per the Constitution.
Speaking with Stabroek News last evening, Alexander explained that he and his colleague withdrew from the meeting after the government-nominated commissioners attempted to place on record particular accusations against the officers without first having those accusations established as fact via an independent hearing.
“The PPP/C Commissioners had written to the Chair indicating that they would not proceed with summary dismissal but rather would terminate the contracts of the officers. It was on this basis that the CEO withdrew his legal action but today during the meeting there was reference to the clauses included in the motions for dismissal. If you want to enter cause into the record, you need to have a hearing to establish that this cause exists and you need to have unbiased persons presiding over that hearing,” Alexander maintained.
In responding to Alexander’s claims, government-nominated commissioner Sase Gunraj lamented that “the saga continues”.
“We cannot pretend there is no basis for the termination. Mr Alexander would like for there to be no mention of the skullduggery the whole world saw perpetrated but it is a matter of public notoriety,” Gunraj said.
According to Gunraj, by adjourning the meeting to Thursday and presenting an agenda with that single item to be dealt with, the Chair is indicating her willingness to finally bring the matter to a close.
By setting the meeting within two calendar days Chairperson Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh has utilised Article 226 of the Constitution, which specifies that a quorum for a meeting of the Com-mission shall be the Chair-man and not less than four members of the Com-mission – two each appointed by the President and the Opposition respectively. The Article further explains that if at any stage of a duly summoned meeting, a quorum is not present due to the absence of members without good cause to be determined by the Chair-man then the meeting is to be adjourned for two calendar days. It adds that if at the adjourned meeting there is still no quorum, then the members present, being not less than four members including the Chairman, shall be deemed to be a quorum and any decision made at any such adjourned meeting shall be valid and binding.
The motions against the three officers, which were first laid on June 1, accuse them of acting in a manner which has caused a loss of public confidence and public trust in the electoral process. They have also been accused of discarding their oath of office and failing to act fairly and impartially or legally in the discharge of their duties.
While the motions against Lowenfield and Mingo list numerous instances where they are alleged to have acted contrary to GECOM protocol and law, the motion against the DCEO accuses her of aiding and abetting the CEO in his unlawful action but does not provide any particular action which was taken by her in furtherance of this. It, however, presents two instances where the she is alleged to have acted in a manner which the Com-missioners allege lacked impartiality.
Though initially requesting that the officers be summarily dismissed, the motions have since been amended to request the termination of their contracts of employment, allowing them to leave with their contractual benefits.
Lowenfield had challenged the participation of two of the government-nominated Commissioners in the vote on a motion to dismiss him as he contended that they would be biased and that he would be denied the right to a fair hearing. However, on Monday, through his attorney, he discontinued his application to the court, just days after counsel for the Commission, Kim Kyte-Thomas, sought to allay what she said were the fears of the CEO, and had told the court that the Commission was no longer proceeding with summary dismissal. In fact, she said that through an amended motion, the Commission was pursuing termination with notice.
