– Alexander accuses her of breach of trust
Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh sided with the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) nominated Commissioners to have Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan represent the Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield in the Election Petition Cases, notwithstanding the fact that Astaphan had openly condemned the CEO during the controversial 2020 General and Regional Elections.
Longstanding Elections Commissioner, Vincent Alexander said Justice Singh, in arriving at that decision not only breached the agreed position of the Commission, but showed scant regard for the nomination made by the Opposition nominated Commissioners, and failed to consult with the Chief Elections Officer – the first named respondent.
“The Commission originally decided that we would have a team, and a team meaning that there would be more than one counsel, and in that circumstance, the CEO would have an opportunity to nominate one of those persons…[But]what occurred is that the nomination of the opposition appointed commissioners was rejected out of hand; no provision was made for further engagement; the CEO was not given the opportunity as we had agreed to make a nomination, nor was he given the opportunity to comment on the nominations which had been made. So we had a complete breach of what had been agreed to and an imposition and a foisting of an Attorney on the CEO,” Alexander explained.
At the time, he was addressing reporters during a virtual press conference on Saturday.
While acknowledging that the CEO is an officer of Elections Commission by law, Alexander said it is an established precedent within the Commission that the CEO would select a Counsel of his choice; however, the Commission, following an intervention by Justice Singh, voted to have the Commission identify Counsel for the CEO.
“By a majority, meaning the government appointed commissioners and the chairperson, a decision was taken that GECOM’s participation would be through Counsel appointed by the Commission to represent the first named respondent – the CEO. This flies in the face of GECOM’s customs and practice,” Alexander, a Commissioner for 13 years, told reporters.
Alexander said from the inception, the Government nominated Commissioners touted Senior Counsel Astaphan as their Counsel of Choice.
It was noted that during a meeting of the Elections Commission on October 27, 2020, clear procedures were agreed upon by the Chairman and Commissioners. It was proposed that Senior Counsel Astaphan would be considered for appointment – a move which saw Opposition nominated Commissioner Desmond Trotman expressing reservation based on public statements made by the Senior Counsel. Secondly, it was proposed that the Commission be represented by a team of Attorneys on condition that the Opposition nominated Commissioners be allowed to recommend an attorney for inclusion on the team. It was also proposed and agreed upon that the CEO would be allowed to make a nomination, and express reservation on any proposed member, should there be any.
However, Alexander said when the meeting of the Commission was reconvened on Friday, October 30, 2020, the agreed procedures were ‘thrown out the window,’ and the Commission, by a majority ruling, opted to impose Senior Counsel Astaphan on the Chief Elections Officer.
Before the decision was taken, the Opposition nominated Commissioners, Alexander detailed, had expressed reservation on the retention of Senior Counsel Astaphan on the grounds that he had made public statements prejudicial to the CEO. Such statements, the Opposition nominated Commissioners argued, do not augur well for the working relationship of the CEO and Astaphan.
It was noted that when the Opposition Commissioners nominated Senior Counsel Neil Boston to represent the CEO, it was rejected. Boston had represented the CEO in the Election Cases following the conduct of the March 2 Elections.
“Having listened to the presentations, the Chairman announced that Astaphan would be appointed. That announcement was greeted with questions about Boston’s nomination, and the chairman’s adherence to the agreed approach with regard to constituting the team, including the fact that no feedback had been provided on the facilities that were to be made available to the Chief Elections Officer for his involvement in the process for selection,” Alexander told the press.
Pressed for answers, Alexander said Justice Singh reluctantly indicated that she had not met with the CEO as she would have undertaken to do.
It was reported that the GECOM Chair, in response to the concerns raised, said those who are dissatisfied with the situation, including the CEO, can raise their concern with the Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire. But Alexander made it clear that it was not a matter for the Chief Justice (ag) but a situation in which the Chairman of GECOM would have failed to carry out the decision of the Commission with regard to the appointment of the Counsel and involvement of CEO.
While Justice Singh has reportedly agreed to meet with Lowenfield, she made it clear that the appointment of Senior Counsel Astaphan was a “done deal.”
“What has emerged at GECOM is untenable, unprecedented and aimed at corralling the CEO’s participation in the hearing of the petitions. The chairperson manner of handling this important matter is a cause for concern,” Alexander said.
Asked whether the CEO can appoint his own Legal Counsel, Alexander, while noting that the issue is a controversial one, reminded that Lowenfield is an officer of the Elections Commission. “Let it be clear this is not an instance in which the CEO is appearing in his personal capacity. The CEO is appearing as the law appointed officer for that purpose, and so the CEO’s disposition was that he would work with the decision of the Commission,” Alexander responded.
Senior Counsel Astaphan practices in Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda and St. Lucia. He was made Senior Counsel by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in 1999. During the controversial General and Regional Elections, which spanned for five months having compounded by a number of legal actions, Senior Counsel Astaphan had said Lowenfield’s actions were an insult to the country’s democracy.
While in the end he was left with no other choice but to present the Elections Report based on a National Recount conducted in May, 2020, the Chief Elections Officer had repeatedly advised the Commission that the Elections were flawed with thousands of cases of voter impersonation detected and clear breach of electoral process.
The Elections Petitions, filed by the Opposition – the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) – are intended to set aside the results of elections as declared by GECOM on the basis that the recount was unconstitutional, and the elections were far from free and fair.
The first hearing is set for November 24, 2020 when preliminary issues detected, during the Case Management Conference, would be addressed in the High Court before the Chief Justice (ag).
