Dear Editor,
There are a few things that can get an experienced journalist excited. One of them is the prospect of hearing hard evidence. When I saw 16 boxes being hauled in the Georgetown courtroom of Senior Magistrate, Leron Daly, on Monday March 4, I perked up. At long last, the people of Guyana will get definitive answers to one of the most important questions that has hung over this country like an albatross since the tumultuous elections held four years ago.
Did a cabal, among them top officials with Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) in cahoots with members of the People National Congress/Reform (PNCR), conspired and colluded to steal the elections? The question, one could argue, has already been settled by the Commission of Inquiry into the elections. It answered four fundamental questions. What happened? The Commission found that there were “shockingly brazen attempts” by senior members of GECOM “to derail and corrupt the statutorily prescribed procedure for the counting, ascertaining and tabulation of votes… as well as the true declaration of the results of that election.” Why? The goal, says the Commission, was “stealing the election.” How did GECOM executives try to steal the election? The Commissioners found that they “abandoned all need for neutrality and impartiality and demonstrated a bias for a competing political party and, in the course of events over those days, showed an open connection with that party and by their efforts sought a desired result for that party.”
Which political party? The Commissioners found that GECOM officials colluded and collaborated, “likely amounting to a conspiracy to unlawfully declare APNU-AFC as the winner of electoral district No. 4.” To be clear, a Commission of Inquiry’s role is to investigate, deliberate, and produce findings and recommendations. It does not have the same clout that a court of law has. It also has a lower evidentiary threshold and lacks an adversarial dimension. For example, the GECOM executives that have been charged refused to appear before the Commission and there was nothing that could be done about it. After four years, a damning Commission of Inquiry, 80 witnesses, 16 boxes of evidence, all of it disclosed years ago to attorneys representing 8 defendants, why isn’t the trial underway?
Nigel Hughes, lead attorney for the defendants, waited until the last minute, literally, to file a Hail Mary application. Hughes insists that his “fair hearing” application, based on sections of the country’s constitution, is neither vexatious nor frivolous. But why did he wait until the 12th hour to spring it on the team of State’s prosecutors? Why not a year or two years ago? Why now? Kit Nascimento was not happy with the delay and voiced his opinion which got him ejected from the courtroom. It was all over by then and who was going to put their hands on an aged man?
Darshan Ramdhani, lead attorney with the State’s legal team, told the court he had received an email alerting him about the application, minutes before midnight four days before the start of trial. Hughes apologized for sending the email that late, but said it’s when “those on the lower end of the economic rung works.” That didn’t help explain his high-end SUV parked across the street from the court. Hughes’ application can be seen as an attempt to derail a significant trial, one that goes to the core of our democracy. The Constitution guarantees a fair trial, but his clients, Hughes says, will be hamstrung in defending themselves. Why? The Constitution does not allow for minutes and deliberations of the Elections Commission to be presented in an open court of law or before a tribunal. And because of this, Hughes argues, his clients’ right to a fair trial is at risk of being derailed.
The Constitution further states that when and if Constitutional disputes arise in a trial the matter must be referred to the High Court. And now the people of Guyana will have to wait for, who knows how long, to find out what evidence lays dormant in those 16 boxes. William E. Gladstone, a statesman and a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, coined the famous maxim, “justice delayed is justice denied.” The adage underscores the idea that when justice is delayed it undermines the effectiveness and integrity of a country’s legal system. Let’s hope the wait will be a few weeks and not years.
Sincerely,
Nazim Baksh
