The 2020 elections fraud trial of former staff members of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is set to restart under Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty.
Previously overseen by Magistrate Leron Daly, who has been on extended sick leave, the trial will now begin anew with Magistrate McGusty presiding.
Slated to appear 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.
They are all are charged with conspiracy to defraud the electors of Guyana by declaring a false account of votes cast for the general election which was held on March 2, 2020.
Yesterday, Prosecutor Latchmi Rahamat requested a case management conference to allow Magistrate McGusty to review the volume of charges brought against each defendant. Although Rahamat sought to have this on Monday, November 4, defence counsel cited scheduling conflicts, leading to an agreement for the conference to be held on Wednesday, November 6. The goal is to expedite the proceedings following the conference.
The magistrate inquired about the potential use of recording devices during the trial to ensure accuracy, citing previous issues with evidence presentation. And defence attorney, Eusi Anderson, raised concerns over how evidence was handled in prior sessions, to which Magistrate McGusty responded that any hearsay evidence would be excluded from consideration.
The prosecution indicated their readiness to call a key witness, Minister Sonia Parag, during Friday’s session. Parag, who previously testified under Magistrate Daly, was unavailable as she was out of jurisdiction. In her initial testimony, Parag had recounted her experiences as a practicing attorney and candidate for the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) in the March 2020 elections. She described the close of polls at her assigned station, noting that the presiding officer conducted the vote tally in the presence of polling agents from both the PPP/C and A Partnership for National Unity (APNU).
Parag detailed the process followed by the presiding officer, including the signing and distribution of the statement of poll copies, with one copy displayed publicly, and another securely transmitted to the district’s deputy returning officer. However, defence attorneys had objected multiple times during Parag’s testimony, leading Magistrate Daly to strike parts of it from the record.
With the case now restarting, the prosecution and defence are set to re-examine the witness testimony and evidence.
On July 31st, the last hearing of evidence, state prosecutor Darshan Ramdhani KC challenged Magistrate Daly on decisions she made on the first two days and her note-taking.
The exchanges went as far as the Magistrate making her ledger available for Ramdhani to inspect the notes that she had taken.
The third day of the trial at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court began with Ramdhani outlining a number of issues he believed needed to be addressed before allowing the witnesses to continue with their evidence. As Parag gave her evidence over the first two days and later, Rosalinda Rasul, Ramdhani stated that several observations were made based on the Magistrate’s approach towards the evidence being presented. The prosecution debated for a long period with the Magistrate as they argued the relevance of mentioning the names of third parties.
The prosecutor told the Magistrate that on several occasions, she had not made notes of matters to be used as evidence. Magistrate Daly then asked the prosecution to be specific in highlighting the issues so that they could be addressed. Ramdhani continued to argue his case. Magistrate Daly then insisted that the prosecution point out instances where important pieces of evidence were omitted and she outlined her duties as Magistrate and added that she has the authority to omit what is irrelevant in an evidence statement. Magistrate Daly briefly explained her authority as Magistrate and Ramdhani subsequently apologized and further outlined the issues.
As Magistrate Daly’s notes of record were questioned by the prosecution, the Magistrate handed over the ledger that was being used to make notes to Ramdhani as he indicated that he observed her not taking notes at critical points when the witnesses were testifying. The prosecution also questioned the credibility of video footage that was also being used as a record. Magistrate Daly further explained that her notes are the official records of the case. This prompted the prosecution to request the footage after which her notes were examined for about fifteen minutes. Magistrate Daly then left the bench and allowed the prosecution to peruse her notes and it was after having a discussion with both the prosecution and the defence in her chambers that she returned to the bench.
After the recess, Magistrate Daly told the court that there were some issues that would be reviewed and the matter was adjourned to August 5. The trial did not resume as the magistrate fell ill.
The elections case had earlier seen numerous delays.
