PPP criticises Lowenfield …says as CEO he is under the direction, control of the commission

THE People’s Progressive Party Civic has chided Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield for his stance that he was acting within the confines of the constitution when he presented his report of the March 2, 2020 which contains only valid votes.

The party also said that Lowenfield is subject to the direction and control of the Commission at all material times and that he has failed to do so. “That the Commission enjoys an overarching power over the entire electoral process and its officers, including the Chief Election Officer, to rectify any wrong or illegality or irregularity committed is expressed in both Article 162(1)(b) of the Constitution and Section 22 of the Election Laws Amendment Act,” the PPP/C said in a press release on Friday.

Earlier in the day Lowenfield in a statement responding to his critics had said that they seem to have only read the Constitution in part conveniently and failed to recognise the sections that dictate the functions of the Chief Election Officer. He aid while the Commission makes certain policy decisions and provides guidance to the Chief Election Officer for implementation by the Secretariat, “I have to execute my duties as a Constitutional Officer, particularly in the conduct of Elections.” Lowenfield said the contents of the Stabroek News article suggests that the CEO must only act as the Commission instructs and flout the Constitutional requirements. “At all times, I have acted in conformity with the laws and therefore my action cannot be “seen as clear act of insubordination” as articulated in the ill-informed Stabroek News article,” the CEO stated.

Diplomatic community
Sections of the diplomatic community here as well as the Caricom Chairman, Mia Mottley have criticised Lowenfield for submitting a report in which he set aside voted that have been deemed invalid by law. Lowenfield on Tuesday utilised the valid votes, as ordered by the Court of Appeal and submitted his Election Report, which shows that the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) won the 2020 General and Regional Elections by more than 5,000 votes. “I have taken note of the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Eslyn David v Chief Elections Officer et al in the preparation of my Report under Section 96 of the Representation of the People Act and providing advice as required by Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana,” the CEO said in the report to the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh.

The CEO’s Report show the APNU+AFC securing 171,825 valid votes while the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) raked in 166, 343 valid votes, followed by A New and United Guyana (ANUG) with 1,776 votes, Change Guyana with 1,517 votes, and Liberty and Justice Party (LJP) with 1,517 votes. The People’s Republican Party (PRP), The Citizenship Initiative (TCI), The New Movement (TNM) and the United Republic Party (UPR) got less than 700 votes each. Together, the Joined Lists comprising ANUG, LJP and TNM, secured a total of 3,348 votes.

Lowenfield also in the Report, noted that there were only 344,508 valid votes cast at the March 2 General and Regional Elections. Some 3,001 votes were rejected, and when taken together with the valid votes cast, Lowenfield records show a total of 347,509 votes. He then allocated 33 seats in the National Assembly to APNU+AFC, 31 to the PPP/C and one seat to the Joinder Lists comprising A New and United Guyana (ANUG), Liberty and Justice Party (LJP) and The New Movement (TNM).

However, the Opposition, PPP/C has complained bitterly about the report and has even written the chairman of GECOM seeking a withdrawal of the report. At case management conference by the Caribbean Court of Justice on Thursday, the court ruled that it could not undo what the CEO has already done.

The party noted that importantly Article 162(1)(b) clearly states that: the that the Election Commission shall issue such instructions and take such action as appear to it necessary or expedient to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with the provisions of this Constitution or of any Act of Parliament on the part of persons exercising powers or performing duties connected with or relating to the matters aforesaid (i.e. the administrative conduct of elections). “Accordingly, Mr. Lowenfield’s position is simply untenable. We reiterate that he is part of a larger conspiracy to commit elections fraud. No law gives Mr. Lowenfield the power to do what he attempted do, a fact he well knows. Mr. Lowenfield is not a constitutional officer holder as he claims in his release, since the office of the Chief Election Officer is not created by the constitution. It is created by the Representation of the People Act,” the party said.

Contractual officer
It noted too that the Chief Election Officer is hired by the Commission. “He is therefore a statutory contractual officer of the Commission and his mandate is to only act upon the directions of the Commission. He has no power to invalidate a single vote, moreover 115,000 votes. Even the Commission has no power to invalidate votes,” the release said.
The party said that such a position is the preserve of the High Court moved by an election petition after the declaration of the final results upon the presentation of evidence. “Moreover, his reliance on the Court of Appeal’s judgment is also conveniently misplaced in furtherance of his scheme to defraud the electorate. At no point did the Court of Appeal rule that the Chief Election Officer could unilaterally determine the valid votes cast in the election. The Court of Appeal certainly did not empower Mr. Lowenfield to disenfranchise voters,” the PPP said.

“Indeed as much as we have an issue with the Court of Appeal’s ruling, to their credit, Justice Reynolds resided the power in the Commission, not the Chief Election Officer, to determine final and credible results. In any event the Court of Appeal’s decision was stayed and was not in effect at the time,” the release said.

The party said that on those bases alone Lowenfield’s attempt to hide behind the Court of Appeal’s judgment in committing electoral fraud must be discarded. “APNU/AFC is clearly part of Mr. Lowenfield’s scheme to commit these criminal acts. The Attorney General, who ought to be an independent and impartial constitutional officer holder in the current proceedings at the CCJ, as part of that conspiracy, attempted to justify Mr. Lowenfield’s conduct at yesterday’s CCJ hearing, showcasing to the world the conspiracy at work,” the party said. It said that this latest incident “is merely only a part of APNU/AFC, and now their surrogate Lowenfield’s sordid history, in attempting to justify their actions under the colour of the law and constitutionality.”