The Commission of Inquiry into the March 2nd, 2020 general elections has blistered leading elections officers during the period: Keith Lowenfield, Roxanne Myers and Clairmont Mingo for engaging in brazen attempts intended to rig the polls.
All three declined to testify before the inquiry and they are presently facing a host of charges before the magistrate’s court.
“In summary, our inquiry reveals that there were, in fact, shockingly brazen attempts by Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, Deputy Chief Election Officer (DCEO) Roxanne Myers and Returning Officer (RO) Clairmont Mingo to derail and corrupt the statutorily prescribed procedure for the counting, ascertaining and tabulation of votes of the March 2nd election, as well as the true declaration of the results of that election, and that they did so – to put it in unvarnished language of the ordinary man – for the purpose of stealing the election”.
The report presented its conclusions on the three officers whose contracts were terminated in the aftermath of the attempted rigging of the elections.
After careful consideration and analysis of the evidence before us, it is our considered view that CEO Mr. Keith Lowenfield, DCEO Ms. Roxanne Myers and RO Mr. Clairmont Mingo were principally responsible for clear and deliberate attempts to frustrate, obstruct and subvert the ascertainment of votes in electoral district No. 4.
We have come to this conclusion for the following reasons.
Regarding CEO Keith Lowenfield
Prior to the elections he met with international observers and party agents among others and explained to them:
1. That the ascertainment and tabulation of votes cast was going to be by a comparative examination of SOPs in the possession of GECOM, with those in the possession of political party agents.
2. That ascertainment and tabulation of votes would be undertaken expeditiously.
3. During the night of the 4th March, 2020 the CEO assured party agents and observers that the ascertainment and tabulation process would resume at 9:00 a.m. on that morning.
Of course, as we have already seen, the matters promised at 1 and 2 above were not honoured. There was no 9:00 a.m. resumption on the 4th March 2020. We have not heard any evidence of any explanations for these omissions and failures, nor of any apology, as a matter of courtesy, coming from the CEO to the waiting and expectant party agents and observers.
Additionally, the CEO made many other statements which, even if made with the best intentions, turned out to be misleading. For example, the evidence before us was that on 4th March 2020, after a GECOM meeting which immediately ordered the discontinuance of the use of a spreadsheet in the ascertainment and tabulation process and reaffirmed the use of SOPs for that process, the CEO told party agents and observers that, among other things, GECOM had decided after an interruption, that the tabulation process would continue into the night, for as long as it took to complete the process. This was an empty undertaking which was feebly honoured and we are of the view that the general conduct of the CEO must have seriously eroded the trust of the Guyanese people in him.
The CEO, well knowing that GECOM had specifically decided that the approved method for the ascertaining and tabulation of votes cast for the respective competing political parties was to be by the comparative examination of SOPs, nevertheless, on the 4th March 2020, approved the use of a spreadsheet which turned out to be a document, the information on which was substantially inconsistent with that on the SOPs in the possession of party agents. This was confirmed by multiple witnesses who appeared before us and by reports in evidence from independent international and regional election observer missions.
Despite the loud objections of party agents who did not have access to nor possession of this spreadsheet, the CEO insisted that this document had to be used because it was an administrative document, and its use was efficient.
By referring to the spreadsheet as an “administrative document” the CEO was in our view, conveying the impression that the spreadsheet was a GECOM approved document, which it was not.
On being called before GECOM in relation to the use of a spreadsheet in the ascertainment and tabulation process, the CEO told the commissioners of GECOM, that the use of the spreadsheet was both expedient and efficient. He did not tell the commissioners that the efficiency of the ascertainment and tabulation process had been established the day before when some 323 SOPs had been ascertained and verified through extended hours of work by the comparative use of SOPs as had been decided upon by GECOM, something which he knew or ought to have known about.
Nor did he tell the commissioners that he was faced with complaints by party agents that the spreadsheet that was being used, and the use of which he was encouraging and supporting, bore significant errors. The data on the spreadsheet, when compared with SOPs in the possession of party agents, was found to have a record of votes for the APNU/AFC which had not been earned by that party and which was therefore an inflated record of the votes for that party, while the very spreadsheet carried a decrease in the number of votes earned by the PPP/C. Seeing these glaring discrepancies and errors, party agents of several political parties vociferously protested the use of the spreadsheet.
At one point when it was recognized by party agents that the results recorded on the spreadsheet that were being used by GECOM staff carried votes for the APNU/AFC party that were over and above the votes recorded for that party on SOPs in the possession of party agents, and a corresponding decrease in votes for the PPP/C party, as against what was recorded for that party on the SOPs of party agents, an observer Ms. Rasul approached CEO Lowenfield and asked him for a copy of the spreadsheet, the use of which he had insisted on. Ms. Rasul explained the CEO’s response was to walk away from her but not before saying to her “Don’t do this to me.”
We wondered what to make of those words. Was it that the CEO thought Ms. Rasul a nuisance? Was it that he thought that meeting her request was an onerous task? Or was it that his response was uttered after his immediate recognition that the spreadsheet was deliberately “engineered” to carry false statistics and that the spreadsheet, if put in the hands of persons unknown to him or whom he could not trust would be damning evidence of wrongdoing in relation to the ascertainment and tabulation of the votes for electoral district No. 4? Whatever he might have meant, the CEO, by his overall conduct, certainly opened himself to the criticism that the spreadsheet was introduced for ulterior motives and not for efficiency. Indeed, the use of the spreadsheet caused major disruptions and slowed the tabulation process.
Further, with respect to the CEO’s overt and vocal support for the use of the spreadsheet both to party agents and observers, and later to the commissioners of GECOM, we are of the view that the CEO knew or ought to have known that the methodology approved by GECOM for the ascertainment and tabulation of votes was through the use of SOPs. The CEO knew or ought to have known that section 84(1) of ROPA specifically provided that the ascertainment of votes cast for each political party was to be “in accordance with the Statements of Poll” and that by promoting and insisting on the use of a spreadsheet, he was acting contrary to law.
The CEO knew or ought to have known that Ashmin’s Building had been identified by GECOM as the office of the RO for electoral district No. 4 and seemingly did not object to the relocation of the venue for the ascertainment and tabulation of votes at GECOM headquarters at Kingston, Georgetown. The chairperson of GECOM told us that the CEO told her that Ashmin’s Building lacked facilities. However, we have noted that there were no facilities in use at GECOM headquarters that were not available and previously in use at Ashmin’s Building.
The evidence we heard was that the CEO took possession of both the spreadsheet and the computer and USB attached, both of which had challenged information. We have no evidence of what became of the spreadsheet, computer and USB drive. We accept that the CEO was last in possession of these items, which may well contain information of incorrect and falsified elections results for electoral district No. 4.
The CEO is on record as having expressed his view that the CARICOM supervised national recount, accepted as credible and accurate in the reports from all the observer teams, did not represent the will of the people. We did not see this concern manifested when the spreadsheet which he authorised was met with howls of objection from political parties and observers, or when clear discrepancies in votes being called out were brought to his attention.
Regarding DCEO Roxanne Myers
We have closely scrutinized the evidence relating to the DCEO. It is clear to us that on the 4th March 2020, the DCEO took a decision to limit the number of political party agents and observers for the ascertainment and tabulation process at the Ashmin’s Building. The reason she gave was that GECOM staff did not feel safe with many people in the room. We note, however, that on the 3rd March 2020, no one from GECOM complained of intimidation or feeling unsafe. We are of the view that this was a unilateral decision by Ms. Myers taken as an administrative measure, for no justifiable reason but intended to limit the number of witnesses to GECOM’s ascertainment and tabulation procedures.
On the 4th March 2020, Ms. Myers repeatedly conveyed what turned out to be misleading information on the time of restart of the ascertainment and tabulation process for that day. Even though at the close of that exercise on the 3rd March 2020, the RO had advised that the exercise would resume on the 4th March 2020, at 9:00 a.m. It was not until 11:00 a.m. that the DCEO went to the tabulation room to announce that the process would soon start. Thirty minutes later the RO was seen being lifted out to an ambulance and was taken away. Fifteen minutes later, the DCEO announced that the RO was fine and would return in 45 minutes. All of this proved to be wrong – even misleading – information that came from the DCEO.
The intervention by the DCEO in the absence of the RO was a troubling occurrence for the following reasons:
1. We have determined from the provisions of section 84(1) of ROPA that the ascertainment and tabulation of votes cast in an election is the statutorily conferred authority of the RO which also includes a DRO.
2. In the absence of RO Mingo, it was clear that DCEO Myers had arrogated unto herself the authority to continue the ascertainment and tabulation exercise.
3. She appears to have selected GECOM staff to conduct that process and apparently unilaterally decided to continue the process for sub-district East Bank Demerara when at the close of tabulation on the 3rd March 2020, the Georgetown district was being examined.
4. Even though she was not involved in the ascertainment and tabulation process for Georgetown, she engaged in an argument with party agents over the number of SOPs left to be completed for Georgetown.
5. Her promise to revert to the witness Mr. Sase Narine Singh on the details he provided to her about the outstanding SOPs for Georgetown never materialized. This coupled with her assurance that the SOPs for Georgetown would be completed on the return of the RO, as events showed, were, in our view, just calculated to appease and placate agitated party agents and observers.
Even though it was DCEO Myers who set the tabulation process in motion in the absence of the RO, she appeared to have receded into the background with respect to the source material they were to use in the ascertainment and tabulation exercise. An assistant to the RO then entered the picture to give instructions to the staff about the use of a spreadsheet which was provided to them by Mr. Enrique Livan. The DCEO only appeared again after the two GECOM staff she had identified to conduct the tabulation process abruptly ended the exercise on the grounds of being hungry and tired.
The DCEO, in most of her interactions with party agents, appeared unhelpful and carried a hostile and abrasive bearing, evident in the video footage placed in evidence before us. This was evident when she asked party agents and observers to leave the tabulation room saying, “Take your rubbish with you and leave”.
On the occasion of a report of a bomb being placed in Ashmin’s building, she told party agents, observers and diplomats, “Y’all get out the room. There’s a bomb in the building.” She never left the building. GECOM Commissioner Mr. Sase Gunraj told us that on one occasion as he went up the stairs to the second floor to meet the RO, DCEO Myers stood in his way and blocked his path to prevent him from getting into contact with the RO. However, we saw video evidence of a minister of the then APNU/AFC government visiting the Ashmin’s Building to have a meeting with diplomats and observers. The minister was chaperoned into the room where the meeting was to be held by the DCEO. At one point, the DCEO received a call on her phone which was apparently intended for the APNU/AFC minister, and so she passed her phone to the minister. The difference in her demeanour with the minister sharply contrasted with her demeanour with party agents and observers who had a legitimate interest in being at the Ashmin’s Building. Interestingly, the Chairperson of GECOM told us of being completely unaware that such a meeting by a government minister was to be held in a GECOM building.
On the 5th March 2020, the DCEO seemed to have developed an obsession with getting party agents, observers and others out of the room. We believe that the bomb threat which turned out to be a hoax (given that the police had determined the objects handed over to them by the DCEO were completely harmless contraptions) was a contrivance, an artifice created by persons bent on manipulating the outcome of the elections.
While no one had seen the RO on the morning of 5th March 2020, the DCEO, at around 12.30 p.m. that day, was assuring party agents and observers that the ascertainment and tabulation process would soon resume. Yet, not much longer afterwards, RO Mingo who had not completed the ascertainment of votes for his district, went to the tabulation room and announced that he was going to make a declaration of the district No. 4 results in accordance with his spreadsheet count.
This was an incredible occurrence in our view. It is difficult to accept that when DCEO Myers went into the tabulation room, minutes before the RO gave notice of his intention to make a declaration of results, to herself announce that the tabulation process would soon resume, that she was unaware of the RO’s intention. We say so because we believe the evidence of ACP Thomas that he had been told by Senior Superintendent Azore, that Ms. Myers had advised him that a very important announcement was to be made that day. The important announcement turned out to be the RO’s unlawful declaration.
The assurance of the DCEO to party agents was, in our view, misleading and was most likely intended to placate and appease the party agents and observers who had been waiting in the tabulation room for a protracted period of time. The DCEO, we believe, knew that the RO was going to make a declaration and that no further tabulation exercise was to be undertaken.
It is our further view, from the totality of the evidence surrounding the RO’s declaration, that there appears to be such collusion and collaboration between senior GECOM officials as to likely amount to a conspiracy to make what was undoubtedly a premature and unlawful declaration of falsified results which showed the APNU/AFC party as the winner of electoral district No. 4. This, we believe, was the ultimate goal of the CEO, the DCEO and the RO.
The collusion and collaboration between these senior officials of GECOM was evident at the time of the declaration itself. While the RO was making the declaration, the DCEO was looking on from the floor above. At that time, she knew or ought to have known that:
1. The RO’s spreadsheet was not a true record of the total votes cast for electoral district No. 4.
2. On several previous occasions party agents and observers had detected and drawn to her attention and that of the CEO that there were deliberate attempts being made, through the use of spreadsheets and other computer generated records, to falsify the results of the elections in electoral district No. 4, to show a lead in votes for the APNU/AFC party and to alter the votes for the PPP/C to show a decrease in votes for that party. These were matters to which the CEO and the DCEO paid no attention to and took no meaningful action on.
3. The DCEO knew or ought to have known that at the time of the RO’s declaration, the statutorily prescribed procedure and requirements of ascertainment and tabulation for electoral district No. 4 had not been completed and that therefore the RO’s declaration was a clear violation of the law. But the DCEO merely looked on. She said nothing and did nothing.
Regarding RO Clairmont Mingo
The RO for electoral district No. 4 was Mr. Clairmont Mingo. On the 3rd March, 2020, he supervised what can only be described as a successful ascertainment and tabulation of the votes cast for competing political parties in electoral district No. 4. The methodology used by the RO on that day was the comparative use of SOPs, which he had advised party agents and observers would be the methodology to be employed. He apparently fell ill on the 4th March, 2020. Replacement staff were identified to continue the ascertainment and tabulation process. His assistant told one of the GECOM staff, identified to continue the ascertainment and tabulation process in his absence, that the process would no longer be done through the comparative use of SOPs but rather by the use of a spreadsheet.
The RO was not seen for the entire day. He returned on 5th March 2020 and, on that day, he proceeded to make a public declaration of the results of the elections in electoral district No. 4. At the point in time when he made the declaration:
1. The RO knew or ought to have known that the ascertainment and tabulation of the votes for electoral district No. 4 had not been completed.
2. The RO knew or ought to have known that, pursuant to the provisions of section 84(1) of the ROPA, he was required to ascertain and tabulate the total votes cast for each competing political party in electoral district No. 4. Further, he knew or ought to have known that the total votes cast in that district had not been ascertained and tabulated by him and that he was therefore acting in violation of the law by making a declaration at the time he did.
3. Following a decision of the chief justice which gave clear directions that the ascertainment and tabulation of the votes for electoral district No. 4 had to be done through the comparative use of SOPs, the RO, in complete violation of the order of the chief justice, resorted to the use of a broadsheet of numbers, which he said had been extracted from SOPs.
As to this development, we note:
1. The RO ignored all advice that by so doing he was acting in breach of the court’s order.
2. He offered no comfort to party agents and observers who sought to question him on the integrity of the information on his broadsheet. Very significantly, he made no response to a request to inspect the SOPs he claimed were used in the compilation of his broadsheet data. Indeed, we are satisfied that the RO and his staff defiantly resisted all efforts by party agents and observers to scrutinize GECOM’s SOPs.
3. The RO, on 13th March 2020, continued the use of his broadsheet in a changed location and in a room where tables previously provided for the convenience of party agents and observers had been withdrawn and were no longer available to them.
4. On 13th March 2020, the RO allowed himself to be influenced by APNU/AFC party representative Ms.
Carol Joseph, who was conducting herself in a wholly inappropriate manner, and as a result recanted on his earlier undertaking to party agents and observers to restart the ascertainment and tabulation process in the interest of transparency.
5. On the said 13th March, 2020, under the supervision of RO Mingo, GECOM staff called numbers from his broadsheet very rapidly, making it very difficult to follow. A pattern was however discerned which was that votes for the APNU/AFC, party when compared with the votes recorded on SOPs in the possession of party agents, showed that the votes for that party were increased, while votes for the PPP/C showed a decrease in the number of votes actually received by that party.
6. It took another intervention from the chief justice to put a halt to the RO’s use of the broadsheet. We construe his exhortation to his staff to “keep calling those numbers” when he left to attend before the chief justice, as a manifestation of his intention and his desire to complete the process with the use of his broadsheet and secure a declaration of a win for the APNU/AFC party in reliance on the falsified figures on his broadsheet.
7. The resumption of the ascertainment and tabulation process at GECOM headquarters over the period 12th/13th March, 2020 can best be described as a charade and was a process which was not attended by procedures that were open, transparent and fair. On 12th March, 2020 the RO indicated he would be calling the numbers from a spreadsheet. This was a complete deviation from the ruling of the chief justice who had emphasized that transparency was best achieved by full compliance with the statutorily prescribed procedures, that is by the comparative use of SOPs. On the 13th March 2020, as a result of intense objections to his 12th March, 2020 methodology, the RO switched to reading out results from what he said were SOPs which were fleetingly projected onto an undulating cloth screen (which some described as a bedsheet) which made scrutiny of these documents very difficult, if not impossible. The authenticity of these documents was in doubt. The figures on them were in instances altered in favour of the APNU/AFC party and the RO continued to stoutly resist all efforts by party agents and observers to examine the documents he claimed to be SOPs.
8. The RO, late in the night of 13th March, 2020, prepared and signed a statutorily prescribed form bearing the results of his ascertainment and tabulation of the results of electoral district No. 4 which was to be transmitted to the CEO. This was followed by a disturbing occurrence which suggests collusion and collaboration with APNU/AFC party representative Ms. Carol Joseph. We have found no requirement, as a matter of law, for any political party agent to sign the form that was to be transmitted to the CEO. We conclude therefore that permitting the signature of the APNU/AFC agent, Ms. Carol Joseph, was an effort by the RO to legitimize his highly unlawful conduct in the ascertainment and tabulation of the results of the elections in electoral district No. 4 and as an endorsement by the APNU/AFC party of the RO’s unjustified and wrongful declaration of their victory in electoral district No. 4.
The inquiry headed by retired Trinidadian Justice of Appeal Stanley John and including former Chancellor of the Guyana Judiciary Carl Singh and Justice of Appeal Godfrey Smith also called for reform of the Guyana Elections Commission.
“As it stands, the structure of GECOM is, at its core, politicized, making it difficult for it to operate with any efficiency or effectiveness. Consideration should be given to amending this to allow for more balanced participation from other organizations or professionals with technical expertise thereby reducing the politicization of the electoral process.
“The Carter Center noted in its report on the 2001 elections, “As part of electoral reform efforts, Guyana should give careful consideration to alternative models, possibly reducing or eliminating political party representation and increasing the role of independent members of civil society and professional experts”