Questions were yesterday raised by the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the 2020 elections as it relates to the time that Information Technology (IT) Officer Enrique Livan would have had to change the number of figures from some of the Statements of Poll (SOPs) as alleged by many of the observers on hand, since some video evidence has suggested that he had no particular time to do so.
The video evidence was submitted by Sase Gunraj, a government-nominated member of the Guyana Elections Commissioners (GECOM) who returned to testify yesterday before the CoI.
In one of the videos which he submitted and which was presented before the CoI, Livan was seen sitting in a room where he took a laptop and the flash drive and was being questioned by everyone present who had protested and followed him into that room, along with a police officer, who was called in after Livan was reported.
Before taking the two items into the room, Gunraj said, Livan “was asked on several occasions between picking up the laptop and the flash drive and getting to the room, he was asked on several occasions in that short journey to leave them in the presence and sight of everyone. That request was denied. He proceeded into that room, persons went behind him, certain allegations were made as to what he is doing in there…the allegation was…that he was actually working on that laptop with that flash drive that he removed from the tabulation centre in a room outside of the sight and observation of all the persons gathered.”
The video showed that the desk in front of Livan had two flash drives; one was lying on the table, while another was inserted into the computer that he went into the room with.
The video evidence also showed a woman who Gunraj identified as Iesha Mohamed showing the gathering a photo of an Acer brand laptop that she said was being used by Livan in the tabulation area. However, upon being confronted by those gathered in the room, the IT officer said that the laptop that he was using was a Dell, but that claim was quickly dispelled when the photo revealed that he was indeed using an Acer laptop.
Gunraj was posed questions by the commission as it relates to if he himself had ever seen Livan working on the laptop, to which he replied in the negative. However, he told them that he was informed by someone who saw Livan’s actions and was also alerted due to the loud noise that was made by persons who protested against the IT officer taking the two items into the room. He also noted yesterday that he and many other persons saw Livan resting his head on the desk when they entered the room.
The witness was also asked how long Livan had to change anything on the documents that were on the computer and if the door to the room was locked since he stated that persons quickly protested and followed the IT officer into the room.
In reply, Gunraj said, “when he proceeded to that door, that room, even though request was being made of him when he went into that room, the door was closed…my recollection is that persons attempted to go to the room immediately and were unable to…people kept rapping on the door…and at some time I believe later they were able to go into that room…to give in terms of minutes and seconds I can’t but there was some time that elapsed…at least 10 or 15 minutes.”
Additionally, the commission queried if the room was enclosed by glass and if anyone could have seen through the glass. Gunraj strongly contended at first that the room had “four solid walls,” but then changed his answer when he was shown the video, where Counsel to the Commission Sophia Chote SC showed him that there were two glass windows on either side of the door. He said they were blocked with curtains. As a result, the question remained how someone could have seen Livan working on the computer if the glass was blocked by curtains and also if the door was closed.
Further asked by Chair of the CoI, Retired Trinidadian Judge Stanley John, if questions were ever raised as to why Livan had decided to take the computer into the room with him, Gunraj replied that Livan had claimed that he did it because persons prior to him did the exact same thing and no one said anything about it. However, according to Gunraj, the IT officer’s claim was immediately denied by everyone that was present.
He also asked the witness if any inquiry was done by GECOM into Livan taking the laptop and the flash drive into the room and he replied to say that no formal inquiry was done but GECOM “had talked about it.”
