-prosecution, defence clash
Minister of Local Govern-ment, Sonia Parag was the first witness to testify yesterday in the long-awaited 2020 electoral fraud trial and as she attempted to explain what she observed as a PPP/C candidate the defence objected several times but most of these were overruled by presiding Magistrate Leron Daly.
However, the magistrate did suggest to the prosecution that a Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) official should explain the electoral process as Parag, who was a PPP/C 2020 candidate was not in a position to do so as was objected to by defence counsel.
Before the court are former Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield, former District Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, former Deputy Chief Election Officer Roxanne Myers, Volda Lawrence, Sheffern February, Denise Bobb-Cummings, Michelle Miller, Enrique Livan and Carol Smith-Joseph. Miller appeared via zoom and the rest in person.
The charges, which were initially read to the defendants in June of 2021, state that between March 2nd of 2020 and August 2nd also of 2020, they conspired with each other to defraud the electors of Guyana by declaring a false account of votes cast for the general election which was held on March 2nd, 2020.
In his opening address to the court Special State Prosecutor Darshan Ramdhani KC told the magistrate that his witnesses will testify to the conspiracy committed by the defendants.
“What you have before you today are 19 conspiracy charges against nine defendants” he told the court adding that the prosecution will produce evidence to prove an attempt to declare a false and fraudulent result of the March 2020 general elections.
In laying the foundation for the charges he stated that his witnesses will describe to the court the evidence which shows the process which was to be followed for the tabulation and verification exercise and the mishandling of the statement of polls and documents that were created at the polling stations.
He said that the nine defendants attempted to declare fraudulent results during the course of the 2020 Elections in favour of the APNU+AFC, which was in Government at the time.
The special prosecutor also stated that while the electoral process went smoothly on Polling Day, it deteriorated during the tabulation of votes for District Four. At that point, Mingo and others allegedly abandoned the statutory process of using Statements of Poll and instead used a spreadsheet containing inflated numbers favouring APNU+AFC.
Throughout his opening arguments, the State Prosecutor aimed to connect the nine defendants to the crime of conspiracy to commit fraud. He told the Court that while some of the defendants were not initially involved, they later inserted themselves and actively participated in actions intended to defraud the electorate.
Present
Parag took to the stand and told the court that in 2020 she was a practising attorney at law and a “candidate to polls” for the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) for the March 2020 general and regional elections.
During her testimony she told the court about her placements at the time of elections.
“On the second of March I was present in various polling stations with several observers that I observed from the European Union, the OAS, AmCham and the local private sector and the bar association and a representative from the APNU+AFC,” the now government minister said.
Ramdhani then questioned her about the close of polls at the station she observed on the said day and she testified that “after the close of polls about 6 pm the votes were tallied by the presiding officer who was employed through GECOM and polling agents for both APNU and PPP/C were present and the tallying was done in their presence”.
She added that the record for the statement of polls was then recorded by the presiding officer for the general elections and on a separate statement of poll for the regional elections.
The witness testified that the presiding officer recorded the statements of poll that had three additional copies. One of the copies from the original was then signed by the presiding officer and the polling agents from both parties on both the general and regional elections.
She stated that a copy was then given to each polling agent and one was placed outside for the public’s view, an original statement of poll along with a tally sheet was sealed for transmission to the deputy returning officer for the district and then for the returning officer of the district.
However, it was not a smooth sailing for the witness as the defence lawyers objected several times to her testimony, some of which was struck by the magistrate, and she had to leave the stand multiple times as the prosecution and defence tussled over some of the testimony.
She then attempted to recount being in a room at the GECOM Command Centre when questions first surfaced about some of the figures that were being presented by some of the GECOM officials that appeared to be different from what the representatives from the parties had recorded from the statements of poll.
The defence attorneys, including Eusi Anderson, Ronald Daniels, and Darren Wade, questioned Parag’s testimony on several fronts.
Parag, who stated that she was an accredited candidate for the PPP/C in the 2020 elections and was responsible for observing the electoral process, attempted to explain the procedure followed after the close of polls and this was challenged by the lawyers.
As a result, Magistrate Daly ordered portions of Parag’s testimony concerning the electoral process to be struck out. Anderson also raised concerns about whether Parag, as a candidate in the elections, was even allowed to be in the command centre.
However, Ramdhani vociferously argued that regardless of whether Parag was accredited to be in the centre or not, she witnessed alleged crimes and is a witness in the case.
Raised
Additional objections were raised by attorneys Daniels and Wade, primarily concerning the inclusion of new information by Parag that was not mentioned in her witness statement.
“In the latter portion of Ms. Parag’s testimony, she provided evidence that had not been disclosed to the defence. We have had ample time during the extended period for such disclosure to be made. Therefore, we object because the evidence presented was not previously available to us, preventing us from obtaining instructions from our clients to respond accordingly. Unfortunately, our senior on the prosecution side believed that the witness should be allowed to, as we would say, go off on a tangent, giving testimony on matters that he might consider relevant, which had not been disclosed to the defense,” Daniels argued.
Attorney Wade argued that it was not appropriate for Parag to provide the Court with “hearsay” evidence, referring to her attempts to describe the established electoral process.
The defence attorneys collectively contended that the prosecution should have first established key facts before bringing Parag to the stand.
However, Ramdhani questioned the relevance of the objections raised by the defence.
“Objection or no objection, the evidence will be presented. There was an objection regarding the identification of the defendants, but the magistrate made it clear that this case would not hinge on whether these individuals were in the room calling out numbers. The defence tried to challenge the identification of the defendants charged,” the State Prosecutor said.
“I just want to emphasize on the fact that these are really damning allegations, which are made against these nine accused persons, that have potentially, really reverberating consequences. So, this process, absolutely must be characterized by fairness, and it is really curious that our senior on the prosecution side, seems to be of the view that it was okay not to disclose the bit of evidence that Ms Parag came and give this morning or attempted to give,” Daniels countered.
The trial continues today at 9 am.
