-defence in flurry of objections
As chaos broke out on March 5th 2020 in the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM’s) command centre at Ashmins building, then Minister of Health Volda Lawrence remained quiet while past District Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo attempted to read out what he said were final figures even though the tabulation process was not complete.
This is according to Minister of Local Government Sonia Parag, who was then a PPP/C accredited officer, as she took to the witness stand for the second day of the trial of the March 2020 electoral case before Magistrate Leron Daly.
The witness also testified about Mingo having to be taken out of the building by emergency responders after he complained about feeling unwell but this was after he left the tabulation centre on multiple occasions.
Mingo and Lawrence are among nine persons before the court accused of between March 2nd of 2020 and August 2nd of 2020 of conspiring 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. The others are, former Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield, former deputy Chief Election Officer Roxanne Myers, Sheffern February, Denise Bobb-Cummings, Michelle Miller, Enrique Livan and Carol Smith-Joseph.
Led by State Prosecutor Darshan Ramdhani KC, Parag told the court that on March, 5, 2020, the tabulation process at the Ashmins building continued at noon instead of in the morning as was expected. At noon, Lawrence was in the room when Mingo entered with a piece of paper even though at that point the counting of the Region Four votes had not been completed.
The witness said it was about that time Mingo indicated that he had a declaration to make in relation to the list of candidates and as result she objected stating that the count was incomplete for the region and an argument ensued. Parag, who was then asked by the prosecution to describe what happened, emphasized that Lawrence remained silent throughout the argument. She attempted to conclude that this was an act of conspiracy as James Bond (a then APNU representative) stood beside the defendant at that time.
On the mentioning of Bond’s name defence attorneys, Eusi Anderson and Ronald Daniels, immediately objected, stating that the witness should refrain from mentioning persons who are not among the defendants. Bond is not a defendant or witness in the case and should be excluded from the statement, they argued.
However, Ramdhani told the Magistrate that the name mentioned is a part of the witness fleshing out the evidence and that the name and others may have also conspired in the process. He argued that the conspiracy expanded beyond the names of the defendants.
While the prosecution initially stated that Lawrence was silent throughout the process it was later stated that she was subsequently engaged in an aggressive argument.
Following the objection and argument, Magistrate Daly ruled that she will strike the piece of evidence that mentioned Bond’s name. Magistrate Daly then questioned how can one being aggressive prove conspiracy and further stated that she has concerns about the relevance of the witness mentioning persons who are not among the defendants in court.
‘Thief! Thief!
When Parag was allowed to continue her testimony, she said as the heated exchanges continued Mingo said that he would be returning to the sick bay and exited the room. Lawrence, she said, maintained her silence as the argument escalated while the lobby area was filled with people. Among those in the lobby area were, now President Irfaan Ali, Zulfikar Mustapha, Dr Frank Anthony, and Bharrat Jagdeo, representatives of the European Union, civilians and others who videoed the proceedings.
Parag further stated that at the time of the commotion, she was on the ground floor while Mingo was standing on the balcony of the third floor with the piece of paper from which he appeared to be reading.
She also spoke of persons shouting “Thief! Thief!” and to this the defence objected since according to them that information was not listed in her statement. The magistrate then struck that piece of her statement. As she continued with the testimony, she recounted Lawrence exiting the building after being engaged in what appeared to be an argument with a number of persons.
Later that evening, Parag said she made checks on the GECOM website where a document was published and signed by Mingo with the declaration of District Four results even though she was aware that the tabulation process was incomplete.
On March 11th 2020 Parag recounted that an injunction application was lodged in the High Court and she swore as a witness in the case. Lowenfield, Mingo and Reeaz Holladar, who was the applicant, were present in court when a ruling was made preventing Mingo and Lowenfield from declaring the district results until the required process was followed. With an expectation that the tabulation process would continue at the Ashmin’s building on the same day, Parag said she returned and Mingo further indicated that the process would be done with a spreadsheet. She then objected stating that it wasn’t in accordance with the ruling. Mingo then exited the room stating that he would return with the statements of poll. She stated that Mingo retuned and mentioned that the spreadsheet would be used since he can determine the methodology.
At that point GECOM Chair, retired Justice Claudette Singh entered the room and some diplomatic representatives questioned whether the court order was being followed. Singh then stated that she would seek clarity on the issue because she did not see the court order. Parag said she argued at that time that it was contempt of court because Mingo did not adhere to the court order.
According to the witness the tabulation process resumed at noon on March 13 2020 at the GECOM headquarters under a shed. Based on her observations, the GECOM employees were calling out figures at a fast rate. The projection on the screen was not visible from where she was seated and as a result, she objected but it was never rectified. Mingo was at the time seated beside Smith-Joseph and remained silent as the exercise continued. The session was later paused for resumption of tabulation for regional elections.
Confrontation
Meanwhile, fast forwarding to August, Parag, said on the 26th of that month Mingo and herself participated in a confrontation at the Police Headquarters, Eve Leary. The officer who participated in the exercise questioned both parties on whether they knew each other prior to March 3rd 2020 to which they said no. Other questions were asked. Parag however, ended the confrontation with a further statement about what she observed Mingo had done on March 3rd, 2020.
Following this evidence the prosecution declared that Parag was ready for cross-examination by the defence attorneys but because of the multitude of questions to be asked they requested for it to be done on another day. Magistrate Daly then announced the cross-examination will commence on Monday.
Before she left the witness box however, Anderson questioned Parag on if she observed any gathering or meeting between March 2 and August 2 2020 of the defendants to which she responded in the negative.
Parag was not the only witness to testify yesterday as Rosalinda Rasul also took the stand.
She said at the time she was an accredited observer attached to AMCHAM and recounted that on March 2 2020 she was assigned to observe districts three and four. She stated that several polling stations were visited. However, at about 17:00 hours during a visit to a polling station in Mon Repos she observed parties’ representatives, police and observers on the street. The witness told the court that she waited there for a few hours before heading to the Ashmin’s building where tabulation of District Four was being done. The process was halted at about 1:35 am on March 3 by Mingo. During this process parties were given the opportunity to gather their Statements of Poll (SOPs) and it was expected that the tabulation would have continued at 2 am.
Magistrate Daly at some points cautioned Rasul and the defence objected as she attempted to make conclusions during her testimony. The defence lawyers objected several times and she was instructed to leave the stand.
According to Rasul at Ashmin’s building on March 4th 2020, the process was expected to resume according to Myers’ announcement. Rasul told the court that after some minutes, a loud noise from outside reached the room and paramedics were seen fetching Mingo. Myers then returned and stated that when the process resumed only three representatives from each party would be allowed. The tabulation was proposed to be for the East Bank Demerara district according to Myers but saw many objections from representatives from the parties.
Rasul attempted to state how the process was to be conducted and was met with many objections from the defence lawyers.
According to Rasul’s testimony, questions were raised on the document used to present the figures since they did not correspond with the SOPs that parties had in their possession. An argument ensued that later prompted Lowenfield to enter the room as requested by the parties. Lowenfield then explained that the document used is referred to as a broadsheet, an administrative tool. He clarified that queries could be rectified with the SOPs but the issue escalated. Lowenfield then returned and the process was resumed with the use of SOPs with which the figures corresponded.
The trial continues today.
