Thursday, July 16th 2020 marked the 9th anniversary of the formation of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU). There is no gainsaying that the formation of APNU – dominated by the PNCR – was a significant development on the political landscape particularly as a result of its coalition on February 14, 2015 with the Alliance For Change to successfully contest the general elections in May that year and unseating the PPP/C government. Since then, however, APNU’s fortunes and standing have tumbled rapidly downhill as it recreated many of the worst attributes of the former PNC including its proclivity to stealing elections.
Still, however, on such an auspicious occasion one would have thought that APNU would have grasped for higher ground and signalled a willingness to end its trampling on the right of the people to free democratic expression. This was not to be as its General Secretary Joseph Harmon, in a statement, unabashedly proceeded to blatantly lie about the ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) stemming from the frivolous case brought by Eslyn David and keenly shepherded by counsel for APNU+AFC.
While it was Mr Harmon’s words, the public has now come to understand very clearly that President Granger is the man at the helm of this obscene and hopeless attempt to defy the will of the people. Mr Harmon’s words are therefore ineluctably Mr Granger’s. Continuing his brazen disrespect for the will of the people, Mr Harmon lied openly about what the CCJ said in the Ali/Jagdeo case in a further attempt to undermine the results of the recount which show a win for the opposition PPP/C.
Mr Harmon contended that “The CCJ’s ruling has meant that the recount order created a new electoral regime and as such, was not in keeping with the Constitution of Guyana. This has meant, also, that votes tabulated during the National Recount cannot be used to declare the results of the General and Regional elections”.
The CCJ most certainly did not state that the “recount order created a new electoral regime”. It spoke to the contrary. Demolishing the bewildering argument by Justice Reynolds in the Guyana Court of Appeal decision that a new electoral regime had been created by Order 60, the CCJ held that: “The Court also notes that an Order issued by GECOM in any particular context can never determine how the Constitution is to be interpreted. It is a matter of elementary constitutional law that if ordinary legislation is in tension with the Constitution, then the courts must give precedence to the words of the Constitution and not the other way around. With respect, the notion that Order 60 could either impact interpretation of the Constitution or create a new election regime at variance with the plain words of the Constitution is constitutionally unacceptable”.
Mr Harmon, who was an intervener in the David case and therefore has a special responsibility not to distort the CCJ’s judgment or its findings, also went on to state: “The CCJ’s ruling clearly invalidated the recount process indicating that the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission was obliged to act in full accordance with the Constitution of Guyana and the judgment of the CCJ and declare the elections results based on the report presented by the Chief Elections Officer”.
The CCJ took pains in its judgment to point out that the only matter before it pertained to its jurisdiction in relation to the Court of Appeal decision and it would make no orders on matters outside of this. It did not invalidate the recount neither did it state that the election results must be declared on the basis of the report presented by the Chief Election Officer, Keith Lowenfield. Indeed, it took the very welcome step of declaring that since the Court of Appeal decision was nugatory the same fate had befallen Mr Lowenfield’s report of June 23rd, 2020 when he outrageously sought to cast aside over 115,000 votes from the balloting on March 2nd.
Nowhere in its judgment of July 8th does the CCJ speak of invalidation of the recount. To the contrary, at various points it impliedly gives recognition to the order. At paragraph 38 of its judgment it states: “Order 60 relates only to the Elections held on 2 March 2020. It was specifically introduced to cater for the various disputes and contentions that arose after polling day. The intention was to provide an open, transparent, and accountable recount of all the votes cast in those elections. The purpose was to assuage the contestations among the various parties, determine ‘a final credible count’, and remove certain difficulties or fill certain gaps in connection with the application of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act. The recount was to be conducted in the presence of representatives of political parties that contested the Elections, advisors to and members of GECOM and a range of other personnel. GECOM was to serve as the final arbiter of issues not resolved at lower levels in the established procedure. The CEO was to supervise the recount process”.
After describing the purpose of the recount, the CCJ said in paragraph 39 “Order 60 carefully set out how the process should unfold. The result of the recount of each ballot box was to be recorded on a Statement of Recount signed by the representatives of each contesting party. The tabulation of the Statements of Recount was to be done at a central tabulation centre in an openly transparent manner. Once all the Statements of Recount were tabulated, the supervisor for tabulation was to ascertain and verify the entries therein and calculate totals, again in the presence of various personnel. This ascertained and verified matrix was to be signed by the District Coordinator for the District and the signed matrix was to be transmitted to the CEO whose responsibility it was to tabulate the matrices of the ten electoral districts and submit to the Commission a report together with a summary of observation reports for each District. GECOM would deliberate on this report and then determine whether it would request the CEO to use the data compiled as the basis for the submission of a report under section 96 of the Representation of the People Act”.
It added in paragraph 40 that the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court to determine any question in relation to whether an election has been lawfully conducted or the result affected by any unlawful act or omission was “naturally unaffected by Order 60”.
Extravagant untruths have been uttered by APNU+AFC officials in this desperate campaign to steal the general elections including that thousands of Disciplined Services members had been disenfranchised as their ballots were deliberately not stamped. It is time for President Granger to bring this ruinous campaign to an end and to accept the will of the people as reflected in the recount of the votes from the March 2nd general elections.
