APNU+AFC rejects attempts by PPP/C to hijack Election Petition

…accuses GECOM of repeatedly siding with PPP/C

By Svetlana Marshall

The A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) has objected to attempts by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) to burden the Election Petition with material evidence, when the petition is based on law.

During Monday’s partial Case Management Conference (CMC) for the case – Claudette Thorne and Heston Bostwick v the Chief Elections Officer and others (Petition 88), the Fourth named Respondent Bharrat Jagdeo, through his Attorney, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, signaled his intention to rely on the Statements of Poll (SOPs) and the Statements of Return (SORs) generated during the highly controversial March 2020 General and Regional Elections.

Mendes’ Application for the admission of evidence was supported by Attorney General, Anil Nandlall; and Attorney-at-law Arudranauth Gossai, who is among attorneys representing the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) and by extension the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), but Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde objected on behalf of the petitioners.

The APNU+AFC Member of Parliament (MP), who forms part of a battery of lawyers representing the petitioners, subsequently told reporters that the PPP/C should not be allowed to convert the petition, which challenges the constitutionality of the National Recount Order (Order 60) and the Section 22 of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act on which it was created, into an evidence based case.

He emphasized that Petition 88 is based purely on law.

In response to an Application by Senior Counsel Mendes, the Chief Justice, on Monday, ordered the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to lay over both the Statements of Poll (SOPs) and the Statements of Recount (SORs) to the Registrar of the Court for safekeeping.

Forde said while it is normal practice for the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) to preserve all electoral documents once an Election Petition has been initiated, those documents are not relevant to petition in question.

“The documents that are ordered to be placed in the custody of the Registrar they will simply be in possession of the Registrar, it will not be available for use, access by anyone,” the Senior Counsel contended, while even suggesting that the Chief Justice may have breached the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act in issuing the order.

Forde also lashed out at GECOM, which, he claims, has been siding repeatedly with the PPP/C.

“…The Elections Commission has acted quite bizarre and quite in a manner that does not reflect the fair discharge of its constitutional responsibility. We have long mentioned and maintained that something is wrong with GECOM right to its very core,” the Senior Counsel told reporters.

Forde further contended that the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield, is being constrained by the Elections Commission.

“The Chief Elections Officer, to the best of my knowledge, has been hamstrung by the Commission which has basically become a very partisan body. The Chairman of the Elections Commission seems to be siding repeatedly with the PPP Commissioners to pursue a certain political agenda and outcome,” he contended.

The Senior Counsel reminded that Petition 88 seeks to set aside Order 60, and the results of the Elections as declared by GECOM on August 2, 2020 on the basis that the order was invalid, and the law – Section 22 of the Elections Laws (Amendment) Act – which was used to create the order – is unconstitutional.

Ultimately, the petitioners are seeking an order from the Court for the APNU+AFC Presidential Candidate David Granger, to be declared President, based on the initial results tabulated and declared by the ten Returning Officers (ROs).