Blog

And the Commission offered firm conclusions.

“In summary, our inquiry reveals that there were, in fact, shockingly brazen attempts by Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, Deputy Chief Election Officer (DCEO) Roxanne Myers and Returning Officer (RO) Clairmont Mingo to derail and corrupt the statutorily prescribed procedure for the counting, ascertaining and tabulation of votes of the March 2nd election, as well as the true declaration of the results of that election and that they did so – to put it in unvarnished language of the ordinary man- for the purpose of stealing the election,” the report, seen by the News Room, stated.

Ranks of the Tactical Service Unit (TSU) of the Guyana Police Force (GPF) and senior officials of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) were also implicated in wrongdoings.

As such, the Commission recommended that urgent action be taken to improve the functions of both bodies.

“…We hope that this report will help to bring closure to a sad and shameful chapter in the electoral history of Guyana in which the integrity of and trust in the electoral system of Guyana was undermined and temporarily overthrown by the shenanigans of election officials at the highest level of the system,” the report stated too.

Aside from these striking statements, key findings linked to certain notable occurrences were presented.

GECOM’s involvement

It was found that there was a “conscious and deliberate – even brazen – effort” to violate the provisions of Section 84(1) of the Representation of the People’s Act, Guyana’s main electoral law. This section of the law deals with the counting of votes polled.

It was also noted that senior GECOM officials abandoned “all need for neutrality and impartiality” in the aftermath of the elections, demonstrating a bias for a competing political party be it showing an open connection with the party and, by their efforts, sought a desired result for the party.

The use of a spreadsheet

Though there was an approved method for the tabulation of votes cast for each political party, including the comparative examination of Statements of Poll (SOPs), it was found that Lowenfield approved the use of a spreadsheet that was found to have information “substantially inconsistent” with the SOPs of party agents.

And so, the Commission determined that the CEO, by his overall conduct, opened himself up to criticism that the spreadsheet was introduced for ulterior motives and not efficiency. As GECOM CEO, it was emphasised that Lowenfield should have known what the approved methodology was to ascertain and tabulate votes cast. Therefore, by promoting and insisting upon the use of the spreadsheet, he acted unlawfully.

Mingo’s declaration at Ashmin’s building

The report also noted that Mingo either knew or should have known that the tabulation of the votes for District Four (his district) had not been completed when he made his declaration at Ashmin’s building (the GECOM District Four Command Centre) on March 5, 2020.

It was also stated that Myers should have been aware of the procedures required before such a declaration and should have recognised that Mingo’s declaration would be unlawful. The Commission, however, said she merely looked on.

“From the totality of the evidence surrounding the RO’s declaration, there appears to be such collusion and collaboration between senior GECOM officials as to likely amount to a conspiracy to make what was undoubtedly a premature and unlawful declaration of falsified results which showed the APNU/AFC party as the winner of electoral district No. 4.

“This was the ultimate goal of the CEO, the DCEO and the RO,” the report noted.

Lowenfield disenfranchising voters

As it relates to the tabulation of the votes cast, which would be used to determine the winner of the March 2020 elections, it was determined that Lowenfield was disenfranchising voters.

“The CEO unilaterally engaged in an exercise of scrutinising the votes alleged to be invalid by the APNU/AFC and determined that of the 460, 362 votes cast for the PPP, 275,092 were not valid, thereby disenfranchising 275,092 electors. The effect of the CEO’s unilateral nullification of votes was that the APNU/AFC ended up with 125,010 votes and the PPP, 56, 627 votes,” the CoI report noted.

Not only that but even when Guyana’s apex court, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), made clear pronouncements on his actions, the former CEO persisted in basing his report to GECOM on the declarations of the 10 Returning Officers, including Mingo’s condemned declarations.

“The conduct and actions of CEO Lowenfield, in relation to the discharge of his statutory duties prescribed by sections 96 and 97 of the ROPA, were a brazen attempt to prevent GECOM declaring the true results of the elections of 2nd March, 2020. His conduct was – to borrow the words of former Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding, Head of the OAS Observer Mission to Guyana – a transparent attempt to alter the results of an election.

“As the Chief Election Officer of Guyana, his conduct dealt a deep, pernicious body blow to the integrity of Guyana’s electoral system and cherished democratic values and must justly and forcefully be condemned as the ultimate betrayal of trust reposed in the highest election official in the land by the people of Guyana,” the report further stated.

The Commission was chaired by Justice of the Appeal (retired) of Turks and Caicos Stanley John. He was supported in his duties by former Chancellor of the Judiciary (Guyana), Carl Singh and High Court Judge (Belize) and former Justice of Appeal (ag) in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Godfrey P. Smith.

Evidence during the inquiry was led by Trinidadian Senior Counsel Sophia Chote and other lawyers, including Natasha Veira and Keoma Griffith.

Justice Younge pointed out however, that the Constitution imposes no timeline on the consultative process but noted that “in this court’s view, there is no better way to demonstrate the commitment but to act with alacrity.”

Justice Younge believes any further ‘delay’ would not be good for the otherwise impressive legal and judicial landscape of Guyana.

Guyana remains without a substantive Chancellor and Chief Justice because of a lack of consultation and consensus between the President and the Leader of the Opposition.

This has been the case during the last three presidencies in Guyana after a constitutional amendment was made to allow the two top judicial office holders to be appointed substantively by the President after obtaining the agreement of the Opposition Leader.

Since the amendment was made to the constitution in 2001, no Chancellor or Chief Justice has been confirmed in the position.

Currently, Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards is performing the duties of Chancellor and Justice Roxane George is performing the duties of the Chief Justice.

They were both appointed by former President David Granger in 2017. Failure by the former Opposition Leader Harmon to recognise President Irfaan Ali as legitimately elected, prevented any form of consultation between the two.

But even during the Granger presidency, no consultations occurred between him and the then Leader of the Opposition, Dr Bharrat Jagdeo.

Former Chancellor Carl Singh and Chief Justice Ian Chang both acted in the position for years amid failed attempts by former Presidents Donald Ramotar and Granger to reach a consensus on confirming them.

Guyana’s last substantive Chancellor of the Judiciary was Justice Desiree Bernard; she served until 2005 and was in position before the constitution was amended.

The procedures for the appointment of Chancellor and Chief Justice are outlined in Articles 127 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of Guyana.

Article 127 (1) states: “The Chancellor and the Chief Justice shall be appointed by the President after obtaining the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition.”

According to George, the sister was scared that the man would have killed her and her children if she ended the relationship in a “rush.”

Thirty-one-year-old Lisa was stabbed to death in full view of her two children at around 03:00hrs; the News Room understands that the incident occurred while she was in bed with her six-year-old daughter and her 12-year-old son was in the living room.

Police sources told the News Room that the woman’s body was examined and there were about 22 stab wounds to her abdomen and neck.

The victim’s 12-year-old son told the Police he was awakened by his mother screaming and went to her bedroom, where he saw her lying on her back on the bed. According to the Police, the child said he saw the suspect on top of his mother, stabbing her with a knife.

The suspect was arrested at the scene. While being comforted by family members, George recalled that she was awoken by screams from her sister who was shouting for help.

“I hear meh sista holler ‘I gun dead’….I jump out the bed and I touch me child father and he run off the bed. He run behind me. I run and I start bramming down the window and the door and I tell me nephew open the door,” Lavern said.

Upon rushing to Lisa’s assistance, they saw the suspect over Lisa’s body; he was armed with two knives, one which he used to inflict the wounds and another that was in his waist.

The suspect was disarmed by Lovern and her husband.

“Me child father reach in the room before me. He run and he run straight and hold the bai (suspect) hand. Me sister fall back on the bed and then I see some blood pulking out from she stomach so I thought was shoot she get. So I take a sheet and I reach it on she stomach,” the grieving woman explained.

“I just keep hollering. Meh sista talking…I keep hollering ‘Lisa, stay with yuh sista’…And then she fall, she just gone and then I tek meh mouth and I open she mouth and I start blowing fah she get lil air. By the time she catch back she self, she seh ‘Nikita I gun dead’ and that was it.”

According to George, her sister spoke to the suspect’s mother about his behaviour in the past.

Lisa and Douglas worked together at a private security firm as security guards. Lisa shared the house with her sister and parents; her two children are from a previous relationship.